4

The following image shows a small excerpt from an article in American Mathematical Monthly from 1968:

enter image description here

What font is being used here, and can it be reasonably easily implemented in LaTeX?

1 Answers1

7

The font seems Baskerville, a clone of which is available also for math. Not really identical, though (for example the letter lambda).

Some clues are the characteristic “C”, “T” and “7”.

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[leqno]{amsmath}
\usepackage{Baskervaldx}
\usepackage[baskervaldx]{newtxmath}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\setcounter{section}{3}

Each element $x\ne0$ of a given quantity structure $S$ is on
a biray $[x]=\{ax:a\in R\}$ (Sect.~7), consisting of the
elements of the same type as $x$; the positive part $[x]^+$
of $[x]$ is a ray. Thus $[\mathrm{in}]=[\mathrm{ft}]=[-100\,\mathrm{ft}]$,
called the ``dimension'' of length. Considering each $[x]$ as an
element of a new system given us in a natural manner a vector space~$[S]$
(Sect.~8) written multiplicatively; this is the space of possible
``physical dimensions.'' If $[x_1],\dots,[x_n]$ forms a base for $[S]$,
then each element of $S$ can be written in the form
\begin{equation}
x=ax_1^{\alpha_1}\dotsm x_n^{\alpha_n};
\end{equation}
the representation is unique if $x\ne0$ (see~Sect.~9).

An isomorphism $\phi$ of $S$ onto itself is a ``similarity'' if it
preserves type: $[\phi(x)]=[x]$ (and preserves positiveness). With a
base as above, the general similarity is defined by $\phi(x_i)=\lambda_ix_i$
for some positive numbers $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n$ (Sect.~11).

\end{document}

enter image description here

egreg
  • 1,121,712
  • This is indeed quite close. It seems also that this clone is a bit bolder than the old AMM font. Is there a version that is less bold? – joshphysics Dec 19 '16 at 23:37
  • 1
    @joshphysics Keep in mind that the printing technology used at the time was quite different from today's. – egreg Dec 19 '16 at 23:40
  • Yeah that did occur to me, and perhaps that would essentially completely account for the difference. The only other real difference I can see which can't be attributed to printing is that the old version's inter-word spacing (and perhaps some inter-character spacings in general) is slightly different. Can that be adjusted manually? – joshphysics Dec 19 '16 at 23:44
  • 2
    @joshphysics To tell you the truth, I've always found the printing of the Monthly rather sloppy (look at the uneven space for [ft]). The math spacing is old fashioned (if not wrong). The interword spacing is, in my opinion, too wide. – egreg Dec 19 '16 at 23:58
  • 1
    Good points. I'll attempt to suppress my nostalgia. – joshphysics Dec 20 '16 at 00:08
  • @joshphysics To help with that, you may want to read Knuth's "Mathematical Typography" paper (his Gibbs lecture of 1978) especially the section (p. 343) where (discussing Transactions of the AMS) he says "At this point I regretfully stopped submitting papers to the American Mathematical Society, since the finished product was just too painful for me to look at." :-) – ShreevatsaR Dec 21 '16 at 03:51
  • @ShreevatsaR Ha! I'll definitely read it. – joshphysics Dec 21 '16 at 04:10