14

I am looking for a certain symbol. It looks like // but closer together and in mathematics refers to a GIT quotient. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

dustin
  • 18,617
  • 23
  • 99
  • 204
Tyler Kelly
  • 293

2 Answers2

19

The stmaryrd package offers you \sslash:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{stmaryrd}

\begin{document}

${\displaystyle A\sslash B}\quad
A\sslash B\quad
L_{A\sslash B}\quad
L_{M_{A\sslash B}}$

\end{document}

enter image description here

As egreg mentions, one can also define the symbols without extra packages:

\documentclass{article}

\newcommand{\sslash}{\mathbin{/\mkern-6mu/}}

\begin{document}

${\displaystyle A\sslash B}\quad
A\sslash B\quad
L_{A\sslash B}\quad
L_{M_{A\sslash B}}$

\end{document}

enter image description here

Gonzalo Medina
  • 505,128
  • 9
    The same result, without extra packages, can be obtained by \newcommand{\sslash}{\mathbin{/\mkern-6mu/}} – egreg Aug 04 '13 at 21:36
  • @egreg I've incorporated your suggestion to my answer. Thanks. – Gonzalo Medina Aug 04 '13 at 21:51
  • @egreg: Why do you define it to be a binary operator? Actually I came to your answer since I was trying to understand what is the best way of writing a quotient, and I realize that / is really awful (both in term of spacing and since / is of class 0), but that \mathchar"113D looks better than \mathchar"213D. Besides, it seems more logical to me, since I usually think at "A modulo B" being an operation that I perform on A rather than as a relation between A and B. What am I missing? Thanks. – Filippo Alberto Edoardo Nov 12 '15 at 17:39
  • @FilippoAlbertoEdoardo I believe that this application needed a binary operator. If you need it for a type of quotient, declare it as ordinary, just like the standard slash. – egreg Nov 12 '15 at 17:42
  • @egreg: Well, in the question the OP asked for the symbol for an application to a GIT quotient, so it seems to me that it should be of the same kind as a usual quotient. But anyhow, reading your comment, I realize that I do not understand why you would declare the usual slash for a quotient to be ordinary: it is not a symbol on its own, it expresses an operation performed on "the top guy" as the relation of "moding out by the lower guy". So why do you prefer ordinary rather than (large) operator? – Filippo Alberto Edoardo Nov 12 '15 at 17:58
  • @FilippoAlbertoEdoardo Just change \mathbin into \mathord. – egreg Nov 12 '15 at 18:36
  • @egreg: Thank you, but I am probably unable to make me understand... I am sorry, as you might notice I am quite new to LaTeX (programming, at least). I am not asking how to change it, I am asking why you would opt for declaring the slash symbol of the quotient as ordinary instead as large operator. I think I know how to do both, but I would like to know which of the two would be more reasonable. As said, if I had to bet, I would say that $A/B$ in the sense of a quotient is more like $A\sum B$ rather than $a+b$ or, worse, $a$. – Filippo Alberto Edoardo Nov 12 '15 at 18:41
  • 1
    @FilippoAlbertoEdoardo It's a problem of spacing; the fraction slash has traditionally been treated without spaces on either side. So it's classified as an ordinary symbol. However, this particular case seems a bit different from the slash and I think \mathbin is better; of course one should know what's the usual way to render it. Using \mathop is out of the question. – egreg Nov 12 '15 at 18:43
5

Here is a slightly more versatile version called \git that adapts to the style you're in:

enter image description here

\documentclass{article}
\newcommand{\git}{\mathbin{
  \mathchoice{/\mkern-6mu/}% \displaystyle
    {/\mkern-6mu/}% \textstyle
    {/\mkern-5mu/}% \scriptstyle
    {/\mkern-5mu/}}}% \scriptscriptstyle
\begin{document}
${\displaystyle A\git B}\quad
  A\git B\quad
  L_{A\git B}\quad
  L_{M_{A\git B}}$
\end{document}
Werner
  • 603,163