>>12818688I can concede that while blackboard bold in print is not to my taste, it is not wrong. But
>>12818216 seems to imply that this is some kind of faux pas (it's not). Now
>>12817652 is a typographic abortion but to harp specifically on the one thing it gets right (or at least not wrong) just displays a total lack of taste.
>>12818707Yeah, another design-by-committee disaster.
>The imaginary unit isn't a variable, so they're objectively right that it shouldn't be denoted in math font. You do know only variables are supposed to be in math font, right?First, it's called italic type. Second, that rule is made up and results in ugly typography. What do you even mean by variable here? Are functions variables?
>>12818709Spivak's Calculus and Calculus on Manifolds use proper bold.
