How to type an inline chi in Latex
16
( chi ) produces a letter that is slightly below the row, but I've seen in many papers a chi that is in the same line as the rest of the row)
symbols
edited Mar 23 '13 at 7:44
Herbert
276k25419732
asked Mar 23 '13 at 5:52
LeoLeo
81113
|
show 3 more comments
16
( chi ) produces a letter that is slightly below the row, but I've seen in many papers a chi that is in the same line as the rest of the row)
symbols
edited Mar 23 '13 at 7:44
Herbert
276k25419732
asked Mar 23 '13 at 5:52
LeoLeo
81113
3
Do you meanmathcal{X}?
– Guido
Mar 23 '13 at 6:05
4
that is a question of font design.chiis a lowercase character and its top is on the same height as of other lowercase characters. And, of course, we have an uppercaseChi, which should have another height than the lowercase one. This is the reason whychihas a depth.
– Herbert
Mar 23 '13 at 7:54
1
@PeterGrillraiseboxdoesn't needgraphicx; withdepthinstead of an eye computed0.35exyou get the exact depth.
– egreg
Mar 23 '13 at 10:38
5
Why would you want that? If you are going to write that glyph to be a chi, then you will be writing it bad (it's like writing the lowercase lettergwith no depth, it's wrong). IMO.
– Manuel
Mar 23 '13 at 10:54
1
@Kundor: I meantdefChi{X}
– Herbert
Apr 18 '13 at 7:08
|
show 3 more comments
16
16
16
3
( chi ) produces a letter that is slightly below the row, but I've seen in many papers a chi that is in the same line as the rest of the row)
symbols
edited Mar 23 '13 at 7:44
Herbert
276k25419732
asked Mar 23 '13 at 5:52
LeoLeo
81113
( chi ) produces a letter that is slightly below the row, but I've seen in many papers a chi that is in the same line as the rest of the row)
symbols
symbols
edited Mar 23 '13 at 7:44
Herbert
276k25419732
asked Mar 23 '13 at 5:52
LeoLeo
81113
edited Mar 23 '13 at 7:44
Herbert
276k25419732
asked Mar 23 '13 at 5:52
LeoLeo
81113
edited Mar 23 '13 at 7:44
Herbert
276k25419732
edited Mar 23 '13 at 7:44
Herbert
276k25419732
edited Mar 23 '13 at 7:44
Herbert
276k25419732
276k25419732
asked Mar 23 '13 at 5:52
LeoLeo
81113
asked Mar 23 '13 at 5:52
LeoLeo
81113
asked Mar 23 '13 at 5:52
LeoLeo
81113
81113
3
Do you meanmathcal{X}?
– Guido
Mar 23 '13 at 6:05
4
that is a question of font design.chiis a lowercase character and its top is on the same height as of other lowercase characters. And, of course, we have an uppercaseChi, which should have another height than the lowercase one. This is the reason whychihas a depth.
– Herbert
Mar 23 '13 at 7:54
1
@PeterGrillraiseboxdoesn't needgraphicx; withdepthinstead of an eye computed0.35exyou get the exact depth.
– egreg
Mar 23 '13 at 10:38
5
Why would you want that? If you are going to write that glyph to be a chi, then you will be writing it bad (it's like writing the lowercase lettergwith no depth, it's wrong). IMO.
– Manuel
Mar 23 '13 at 10:54
1
@Kundor: I meantdefChi{X}
– Herbert
Apr 18 '13 at 7:08
|
show 3 more comments
3
Do you meanmathcal{X}?
– Guido
Mar 23 '13 at 6:05
4
that is a question of font design.chiis a lowercase character and its top is on the same height as of other lowercase characters. And, of course, we have an uppercaseChi, which should have another height than the lowercase one. This is the reason whychihas a depth.
– Herbert
Mar 23 '13 at 7:54
1
@PeterGrillraiseboxdoesn't needgraphicx; withdepthinstead of an eye computed0.35exyou get the exact depth.
– egreg
Mar 23 '13 at 10:38
5
Why would you want that? If you are going to write that glyph to be a chi, then you will be writing it bad (it's like writing the lowercase lettergwith no depth, it's wrong). IMO.
– Manuel
Mar 23 '13 at 10:54
1
@Kundor: I meantdefChi{X}
– Herbert
Apr 18 '13 at 7:08
3
3
Do you mean
mathcal{X}?– Guido
Mar 23 '13 at 6:05
Do you mean
mathcal{X}?– Guido
Mar 23 '13 at 6:05
4
4
that is a question of font design.
chiis a lowercase character and its top is on the same height as of other lowercase characters. And, of course, we have an uppercase Chi, which should have another height than the lowercase one. This is the reason why chi has a depth.– Herbert
Mar 23 '13 at 7:54
that is a question of font design.
chiis a lowercase character and its top is on the same height as of other lowercase characters. And, of course, we have an uppercase Chi, which should have another height than the lowercase one. This is the reason why chi has a depth.– Herbert
Mar 23 '13 at 7:54
1
1
@PeterGrill
raisebox doesn't need graphicx; with depth instead of an eye computed 0.35ex you get the exact depth.– egreg
Mar 23 '13 at 10:38
@PeterGrill
raisebox doesn't need graphicx; with depth instead of an eye computed 0.35ex you get the exact depth.– egreg
Mar 23 '13 at 10:38
5
5
Why would you want that? If you are going to write that glyph to be a chi, then you will be writing it bad (it's like writing the lowercase letter
g with no depth, it's wrong). IMO.– Manuel
Mar 23 '13 at 10:54
Why would you want that? If you are going to write that glyph to be a chi, then you will be writing it bad (it's like writing the lowercase letter
g with no depth, it's wrong). IMO.– Manuel
Mar 23 '13 at 10:54
1
1
@Kundor: I meant
defChi{X}– Herbert
Apr 18 '13 at 7:08
@Kundor: I meant
defChi{X}– Herbert
Apr 18 '13 at 7:08
|
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
24
I'm not sure why you'd want this. However, it's easy to provide it:
documentclass{article}
DeclareRobustCommand{rchi}{{mathpaletteirchirelax}}
newcommand{irchi}[2]{raisebox{depth}{$#1chi$}} % inner command, used by rchi
begin{document}
dg $chi$ dg $rchi$ dg
$chi_chi$ $rchi_rchi$
end{document}
Left the normal chi, right the raised one. I added the baseline in the image just for clarity.
With DeclareRobustCommand, rchi can be used also in section titles (but always in math mode, so section{... $rchi$ ...}).
answered Mar 23 '13 at 10:37
egregegreg
727k8819233233
Hi, your method doesn't seem to look if I were to do this:section{rchi}. Any idea how to fix it?
– BlackAdder
Aug 30 '13 at 9:25
2
@yanbosection{$protectrchi$}; or useDeclareRobustCommand{rchi}{...}instead ofnewcommand{rchi}{...}. I'll edit the code.
– egreg
Aug 30 '13 at 9:47
This is a great solution, thanks! As for a use, I am using it to write the characteristic function of the rationals in my real analysis homework.
– MsTiggy
Nov 7 '16 at 16:58
add a comment |
0
I think what we see in many papers looks like chi but is actually $mathcal{X}$
answered 2 hours ago
Safoora YousefiSafoora Yousefi
1
New contributor
Safoora Yousefi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Welcome to TeX.SE! From this comment, I know that the OP doesn't considermathcal{X}as an answer. So this doesn't provide an answer to the question. Try finding another solution.
– JouleV
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103885%2fhow-to-type-an-inline-chi-in-latex%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
24
I'm not sure why you'd want this. However, it's easy to provide it:
documentclass{article}
DeclareRobustCommand{rchi}{{mathpaletteirchirelax}}
newcommand{irchi}[2]{raisebox{depth}{$#1chi$}} % inner command, used by rchi
begin{document}
dg $chi$ dg $rchi$ dg
$chi_chi$ $rchi_rchi$
end{document}
Left the normal chi, right the raised one. I added the baseline in the image just for clarity.
With DeclareRobustCommand, rchi can be used also in section titles (but always in math mode, so section{... $rchi$ ...}).
answered Mar 23 '13 at 10:37
egregegreg
727k8819233233
Hi, your method doesn't seem to look if I were to do this:section{rchi}. Any idea how to fix it?
– BlackAdder
Aug 30 '13 at 9:25
2
@yanbosection{$protectrchi$}; or useDeclareRobustCommand{rchi}{...}instead ofnewcommand{rchi}{...}. I'll edit the code.
– egreg
Aug 30 '13 at 9:47
This is a great solution, thanks! As for a use, I am using it to write the characteristic function of the rationals in my real analysis homework.
– MsTiggy
Nov 7 '16 at 16:58
add a comment |
24
I'm not sure why you'd want this. However, it's easy to provide it:
documentclass{article}
DeclareRobustCommand{rchi}{{mathpaletteirchirelax}}
newcommand{irchi}[2]{raisebox{depth}{$#1chi$}} % inner command, used by rchi
begin{document}
dg $chi$ dg $rchi$ dg
$chi_chi$ $rchi_rchi$
end{document}
Left the normal chi, right the raised one. I added the baseline in the image just for clarity.
With DeclareRobustCommand, rchi can be used also in section titles (but always in math mode, so section{... $rchi$ ...}).
answered Mar 23 '13 at 10:37
egregegreg
727k8819233233
Hi, your method doesn't seem to look if I were to do this:section{rchi}. Any idea how to fix it?
– BlackAdder
Aug 30 '13 at 9:25
2
@yanbosection{$protectrchi$}; or useDeclareRobustCommand{rchi}{...}instead ofnewcommand{rchi}{...}. I'll edit the code.
– egreg
Aug 30 '13 at 9:47
This is a great solution, thanks! As for a use, I am using it to write the characteristic function of the rationals in my real analysis homework.
– MsTiggy
Nov 7 '16 at 16:58
add a comment |
24
24
24
I'm not sure why you'd want this. However, it's easy to provide it:
documentclass{article}
DeclareRobustCommand{rchi}{{mathpaletteirchirelax}}
newcommand{irchi}[2]{raisebox{depth}{$#1chi$}} % inner command, used by rchi
begin{document}
dg $chi$ dg $rchi$ dg
$chi_chi$ $rchi_rchi$
end{document}
Left the normal chi, right the raised one. I added the baseline in the image just for clarity.
With DeclareRobustCommand, rchi can be used also in section titles (but always in math mode, so section{... $rchi$ ...}).
answered Mar 23 '13 at 10:37
egregegreg
727k8819233233
I'm not sure why you'd want this. However, it's easy to provide it:
documentclass{article}
DeclareRobustCommand{rchi}{{mathpaletteirchirelax}}
newcommand{irchi}[2]{raisebox{depth}{$#1chi$}} % inner command, used by rchi
begin{document}
dg $chi$ dg $rchi$ dg
$chi_chi$ $rchi_rchi$
end{document}
Left the normal chi, right the raised one. I added the baseline in the image just for clarity.
With DeclareRobustCommand, rchi can be used also in section titles (but always in math mode, so section{... $rchi$ ...}).
answered Mar 23 '13 at 10:37
egregegreg
727k8819233233
edited Aug 30 '13 at 9:49
answered Mar 23 '13 at 10:37
egregegreg
727k8819233233
answered Mar 23 '13 at 10:37
egregegreg
727k8819233233
answered Mar 23 '13 at 10:37
egregegreg
727k8819233233
727k8819233233
Hi, your method doesn't seem to look if I were to do this:section{rchi}. Any idea how to fix it?
– BlackAdder
Aug 30 '13 at 9:25
2
@yanbosection{$protectrchi$}; or useDeclareRobustCommand{rchi}{...}instead ofnewcommand{rchi}{...}. I'll edit the code.
– egreg
Aug 30 '13 at 9:47
This is a great solution, thanks! As for a use, I am using it to write the characteristic function of the rationals in my real analysis homework.
– MsTiggy
Nov 7 '16 at 16:58
add a comment |
Hi, your method doesn't seem to look if I were to do this:section{rchi}. Any idea how to fix it?
– BlackAdder
Aug 30 '13 at 9:25
2
@yanbosection{$protectrchi$}; or useDeclareRobustCommand{rchi}{...}instead ofnewcommand{rchi}{...}. I'll edit the code.
– egreg
Aug 30 '13 at 9:47
This is a great solution, thanks! As for a use, I am using it to write the characteristic function of the rationals in my real analysis homework.
– MsTiggy
Nov 7 '16 at 16:58
Hi, your method doesn't seem to look if I were to do this:
section{rchi}. Any idea how to fix it?– BlackAdder
Aug 30 '13 at 9:25
Hi, your method doesn't seem to look if I were to do this:
section{rchi}. Any idea how to fix it?– BlackAdder
Aug 30 '13 at 9:25
2
2
@yanbo
section{$protectrchi$}; or use DeclareRobustCommand{rchi}{...} instead of newcommand{rchi}{...}. I'll edit the code.– egreg
Aug 30 '13 at 9:47
@yanbo
section{$protectrchi$}; or use DeclareRobustCommand{rchi}{...} instead of newcommand{rchi}{...}. I'll edit the code.– egreg
Aug 30 '13 at 9:47
This is a great solution, thanks! As for a use, I am using it to write the characteristic function of the rationals in my real analysis homework.
– MsTiggy
Nov 7 '16 at 16:58
This is a great solution, thanks! As for a use, I am using it to write the characteristic function of the rationals in my real analysis homework.
– MsTiggy
Nov 7 '16 at 16:58
add a comment |
0
I think what we see in many papers looks like chi but is actually $mathcal{X}$
answered 2 hours ago
Safoora YousefiSafoora Yousefi
1
New contributor
Safoora Yousefi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Welcome to TeX.SE! From this comment, I know that the OP doesn't considermathcal{X}as an answer. So this doesn't provide an answer to the question. Try finding another solution.
– JouleV
2 hours ago
add a comment |
0
I think what we see in many papers looks like chi but is actually $mathcal{X}$
answered 2 hours ago
Safoora YousefiSafoora Yousefi
1
New contributor
Safoora Yousefi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Welcome to TeX.SE! From this comment, I know that the OP doesn't considermathcal{X}as an answer. So this doesn't provide an answer to the question. Try finding another solution.
– JouleV
2 hours ago
add a comment |
0
0
0
I think what we see in many papers looks like chi but is actually $mathcal{X}$
answered 2 hours ago
Safoora YousefiSafoora Yousefi
1
New contributor
Safoora Yousefi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I think what we see in many papers looks like chi but is actually $mathcal{X}$
answered 2 hours ago
Safoora YousefiSafoora Yousefi
1
New contributor
Safoora Yousefi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
Safoora YousefiSafoora Yousefi
1
New contributor
Safoora Yousefi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
Safoora YousefiSafoora Yousefi
1
answered 2 hours ago
Safoora YousefiSafoora Yousefi
1
1
New contributor
Safoora Yousefi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Safoora Yousefi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Safoora Yousefi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Welcome to TeX.SE! From this comment, I know that the OP doesn't considermathcal{X}as an answer. So this doesn't provide an answer to the question. Try finding another solution.
– JouleV
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Welcome to TeX.SE! From this comment, I know that the OP doesn't considermathcal{X}as an answer. So this doesn't provide an answer to the question. Try finding another solution.
– JouleV
2 hours ago
1
1
Welcome to TeX.SE! From this comment, I know that the OP doesn't consider
mathcal{X} as an answer. So this doesn't provide an answer to the question. Try finding another solution.– JouleV
2 hours ago
Welcome to TeX.SE! From this comment, I know that the OP doesn't consider
mathcal{X} as an answer. So this doesn't provide an answer to the question. Try finding another solution.– JouleV
2 hours ago
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103885%2fhow-to-type-an-inline-chi-in-latex%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Do you mean
mathcal{X}?– Guido
Mar 23 '13 at 6:05
4
that is a question of font design.
chiis a lowercase character and its top is on the same height as of other lowercase characters. And, of course, we have an uppercaseChi, which should have another height than the lowercase one. This is the reason whychihas a depth.– Herbert
Mar 23 '13 at 7:54
1
@PeterGrill
raiseboxdoesn't needgraphicx; withdepthinstead of an eye computed0.35exyou get the exact depth.– egreg
Mar 23 '13 at 10:38
5
Why would you want that? If you are going to write that glyph to be a chi, then you will be writing it bad (it's like writing the lowercase letter
gwith no depth, it's wrong). IMO.– Manuel
Mar 23 '13 at 10:54
1
@Kundor: I meant
defChi{X}– Herbert
Apr 18 '13 at 7:08