# Latex symbols for equivalence

The "equivalence" symbol ($\equiv$) works well, while the "crossed" versions, like $\neqiv$ and $\notequiv$, do not ?

Some alternatives ?

Thanks

• Generically one can put \not in front of relational symbols, so $\not\equiv$ may suit you. – hardmath Sep 14 '17 at 4:25

• \not\equiv$\not\equiv$
• if you want to adjust the position of the slash, you can do $\not\!\equiv$ or $\not\,\equiv$ by adding a negative thinspace \! or a thinspace \, between \notand \equiv
• This is a very cool trick, and how did you managed $\Bbb Q$ ? – Surb Sep 13 '17 at 19:11
• By using negative space, you could also do \equiv\!\!\!\!\!/, and adjust the amount of spaces you want from that. – Simply Beautiful Art Sep 13 '17 at 22:23
• You should use the first solution, \not\equiv, and not play around with the spacing. This will provide the proper unicode symbol (U+2262), whereas the others will not. Why is this important? Because it will help people who need assistive technology (like screen readers) to get the proper rendering of the mathematics. The other suggestions will produce gibberish. Also, the U+2262 has the slash properly placed, so there is no need to adjust it. Please don't use the suggestions that include \! or \,. – Davide Cervone Sep 14 '17 at 0:36
• Thanks for the explanation @Davide. As we see from the output in this case it would be silly to adjust the spacing. Such dirty tricks were not uncommon in the past. To all: Even today thinspace is commonly added to integrals, because TeX has no way of knowing that $dx$ is not a product of $d$ and $x$. $$\int_a^bf(x)\,dx\qquad\text{vs.}\qquad\int_a^bf(x)dx.$$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Sep 14 '17 at 5:37