Double subscript followed by superscript gives unpleasant result

Question

When typing

$C_{\mathscr T_{\nu^\dagger}}$ and $C_{\mathscr T_\nu}$

we get the output

The way in which $\nu$ is moved further down when introducing the $\dagger$ symbol is unsightly and I am wondering how this can be typeset to give something a little more compact and aesthetically pleasing. I tried placing additional curly braces in various places to see if I got a better result but it did not change anything!

Edit: Here is a MWE

\documentclass[]{report}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\begin{document}
$C_{\mathscr T_{\nu^\dagger}}$ and $C_{\mathscr T_\nu}$
\end{document}

Answer 1

You can hide the symbols or try to adjust the default positioning to get more even spacing for the symbols you use.

\documentclass[]{report}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\begin{document}
$C_{\mathscr{T}{\nu^\dagger}}$ and $C{\mathscr{T}_\nu}$
$C_{\mathscr{T}{\nu^{\smash{\dagger}}}}$ and $C{\mathscr{T}_\nu}$
$C_{\mathscr{T}{\nu^\dagger}}$ and $C{\mathscr{T}_{\nu^{\vphantom{\dagger}}}}$
{% adjust as required.....
\fontdimen 12 \scriptfont2 =15pt
\fontdimen 13 \scriptfont2 =15pt
\fontdimen 14 \scriptfont2 =15pt
\fontdimen 15 \scriptfont2 =15pt
\fontdimen 16 \textfont2 =15pt
\fontdimen 17 \textfont2 =15pt
\fontdimen 18 \textfont2 =15pt
\fontdimen 19 \textfont2 =15pt
\fontdimen 16 \scriptfont2 =15pt
\fontdimen 17 \scriptfont2 =15pt
\fontdimen 18 \scriptfont2 =15pt
\fontdimen 19 \scriptfont2 =15pt
$C_{\mathscr{T}{\nu^\dagger}}$ and $C{\mathscr{T}_\nu}$
}
\end{document}

See

What do different \fontdimen<num> mean

Answer 2

While I am not generally a fan of making a symbol-style smaller than the \scriptscriptstyle, in this case, one can almost think of \nu^\dag as its own glyph. So, what I do here is to define a \nudagref in \textstyle that has is essentially \nu^\dag, with the \dag smashed, so that it has the dimensions of \nu. Then, when I want to use it in smaller math styles, I scale the \nudagref down to the size of \nu in the smaller math style.

In the MWE, the first line shows \dag and \nudag in all three styles. Then I show what the OP had shown. Finally, I employ \nudag in the final line. One downside is that the nu of \nudag is a scaled \textstyle version, and thus has a slightly different shape than the smaller style \nu. See ALTERNATIVE below for a correction to this issue.

\documentclass[]{report}
\usepackage{mathrsfs,scalerel}
\newcommand\nudagref{\textstyle\nu^{\mkern-1mu\smash{\dag}}}
\newcommand\nudag{\scalerel*{\nudagref}{\nu}}
\begin{document}
$\dag\nudag_{\nudag_{\nudag}}$
$C_{\mathscr T_{\nu^{\smash{\dagger}}}}$ vs $C_{\mathscr T_\nu}$
$C_{\mathscr T_{\nudag}}$ vs $C_{\mathscr T_\nu}$
\end{document}

---

ALTERNATIVE:

This version preserves the proper shape of the \nu in the smaller math styles.

\documentclass[]{report}
\usepackage{mathrsfs,scalerel}
\newcommand\dagref{\textstyle\vphantom{\nu}^{\mkern-1mu\smash{\dag}}}
\newcommand\nudag{\nu\scalerel*{\dagref}{\nu}}
\begin{document}
$\dag\nudag_{\nudag_{\nudag}}$
$C_{\mathscr T_{\nu^{\smash{\dagger}}}}$ vs $C_{\mathscr T_\nu}$
$C_{\mathscr T_{\nudag}}$ vs $C_{\mathscr T_{\nu}}$
\end{document}