3

I have been using ' for derivative. But with $\psi$, $\psi'$ looks ugly with ' too close to $\psi$. How to improve?

Mico
  • 506,678
jsmath
  • 133
  • 5
  • 3
    \psi' or \psi^{\prime}. \prime is the literal prime character that needs to be hoisted into the superscript to look nice. ' does that for you automatically and is the most common method to denote a prime in TeX. See also https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/87134/35864 – moewe Apr 15 '20 at 16:43
  • I have used ' for other math derivative, but $\psi'$ looks bad with ' too close to $\psi$. That's why I asked specifically for $\psi$. – jsmath Apr 15 '20 at 17:20
  • 4
    Mhh, I actually think \psi' looks alright (at least with the usual Computer Modern font), you can introduce some kerning if you like \psi^{\mkern1mu \prime} – moewe Apr 15 '20 at 17:25
  • 2
    I’m voting to close this question because the OP mentioned in a comment that the problem was specific to a browser. – barbara beeton Apr 15 '20 at 20:03

1 Answers1

4

You didn't specify which math font your document employs, so I'll assume it's the default, viz., Computer Modern.

The following 3x4 array shows the effects of shifting the ' symbol to the right along the horizontal axis and the effects of shifting the ' symbol upwards along the vertical axis. (The top left cell contains the result of the basic, unshifted, \psi', and the bottom right contains the result of shifting the prime symbol 1mu to the right and 1pt upward.

I trust that one of the combinations meets your aesthetic requirements.

FWIW, if I had to choose, I'd go with \psi', i.e., with no upward or rightward shifting applied.

enter image description here

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\[
\begin{array}{llll}
\psi'              &
\psi\mkern0.333mu' & 
\psi\mkern0.667mu' & 
\psi\mkern1.000mu' \\[1ex]
\psi\mkern0.000mu^{\raisebox{0.5pt}{$\scriptstyle\prime$}} &
\psi\mkern0.333mu^{\raisebox{0.5pt}{$\scriptstyle\prime$}} &
\psi\mkern0.667mu^{\raisebox{0.5pt}{$\scriptstyle\prime$}} &
\psi\mkern1.000mu^{\raisebox{0.5pt}{$\scriptstyle\prime$}} \\[1ex]
\psi\mkern0.000mu^{\raisebox{1.0pt}{$\scriptstyle\prime$}} &
\psi\mkern0.333mu^{\raisebox{1.0pt}{$\scriptstyle\prime$}} &
\psi\mkern0.667mu^{\raisebox{1.0pt}{$\scriptstyle\prime$}} &
\psi\mkern1.000mu^{\raisebox{1.0pt}{$\scriptstyle\prime$}}
\end{array}
\]
\end{document}
Mico
  • 506,678
  • Now I think the problem is that for my application, somehow $\psi'$ didn't show the same effect as above! – jsmath Apr 15 '20 at 18:26
  • @JohnSmith - What might "the problem [with your] application" be? Is it a non-default font, or something else? – Mico Apr 15 '20 at 18:43
  • I tested your code above on overleaf.com, and the output is different from yours, namely ' is too close to $\psi$! – jsmath Apr 15 '20 at 18:57
  • 1
    @JohnSmith - I'm really sorry, but my mind-reading skills are absolutely worthless. Moreover, I don't have an account on Overleaf, and have never had one. (Aside: Have you contacted the Overleaf Help Desk in this matter? They're supposed to be very good.) Unless you provide some actionable information about your document setup, I simply have no way of acting on your report that the prime symbol is too close to \psi. You haven't even gotten around to explaining in any detail what "too close" entails: Is it horizontal proximity, vertical proximity, or both? Honestly, what do you expect me to do? – Mico Apr 15 '20 at 19:27
  • Your code was very helpful indeed because I learned how to modify your code to make it work for my needs. But I thought it was strange that your code showed different results on some platform such as overleaf.com. – jsmath Apr 15 '20 at 19:32
  • 1
    @JohnSmith - I just did set up an account on Overleaf. The following test document -- \documentclass{article} \begin{document} $\psi'$ \end{document} -- produces the exact same result as what's shown in the top-left cell of the array in my answer, viz, $\psi$. I do not understand the basis for your claim that "your code showed different results on some platform such as overleaf.com". – Mico Apr 15 '20 at 19:39
  • 1
    Well, it turns out the problem is the web browser which makes a difference! Try Safari. So it is not the problem with $\psi'$. – jsmath Apr 15 '20 at 19:57
  • @JohnSmith - To me, the output looks just the same to me, regardless of whether I use Chrome, Firefox, or Safari to compile the test document. It's starting to sound like it's not Safari per se but, rather, some quirky browser settings that are to blame. I officially give up. You may want to consider deleting this entire posting as it's not likely to be of any use to future readers. Really. – Mico Apr 15 '20 at 20:07