I have used in my document \dots instead of almost all other dots such as \cdots, \ldots. though it is smart in choosing base line depend on the formula, but in some cases it is not as (at least my) desired:
\dotscannot produce smart space e.g.(1, \dots, n)which prints(1,\ldots,n)which have not a space before tridots `(1, ...,n)'.- I don't know this case is correct typographically or not. but
\dotsin1+2+\dots+n+\dotsproduces1+2+\cdots+n+\ldotsthat I think last\ldotsmust be\cdots. isn't?
Question: How can I redefine
\ldotsor define new one with above properties?
amsmath? Its manual says on p. 14For most situations, the undifferentiated \dots can be used, and amsmath will output the most suitable form based on the immediate context; if an inappro- priate form results, it can be corrected after examining the output., so they at least claim that\dotsis smart afteramsmathgot loaded. Whether their and your conventions agree, I do not know. – Sep 17 '19 at 03:41amsmath. unfortunately I never read its manual. – Sep 17 '19 at 03:44\dotscits not work. Is it correct typographically the first one? – Sep 17 '19 at 03:50\dotssmarter. – Sep 17 '19 at 03:511+2+\dots+n+\dotsb. See https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/122491/4427 – egreg Sep 17 '19 at 08:15;-)There are diverse typographical traditions: look in good books and decide what to do. – egreg Sep 17 '19 at 08:34