7
$\begingroup$

The letter T in CRT is too small below (source here). This is the only letter in the alphabet that exhibits this problem in that context. Alas, it renders so ugly that I've been forced to resort to alternatives such as the $\!\bmod\!$ Distributive Law (just kidding, but it is a bit hard on my eyes).

enter image description here Platform: Chrome 74.0.3729.131 on Win7 at 100% zoom.

$\endgroup$
23
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Looks fine on my computer (Arch Linux, Chromium) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    May 11, 2019 at 22:32
  • $\begingroup$ I just recalled this old post which may be related. $\endgroup$ May 11, 2019 at 22:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Does it look any better for you if you use \text{CRT} rather than {\rm CRT}? Also, what output renderer are you using? $\endgroup$ May 12, 2019 at 17:53
  • $\begingroup$ @DavideCervone Alas, that doesn't help. It goes away at $110\%$ zoom, but it is still there all other neighboring zoom values $75,80,90,100,125,150,175\%\ \ \ $ $\endgroup$ May 12, 2019 at 18:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Davide I'm using the default MathJax settings, renderer = HTML-CSS, MathJax.js v2.7.5 TeX Input Jax v2.7.5 HTML-CSS Output Jax v2.7.5 PreviewHTML Output Jax v2.7.5 mml Element Jax v2.7.5 $\endgroup$ May 12, 2019 at 18:21
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque, is it any better if you switch to CommonHTML? I assume SVG would not show this artifact. $\endgroup$ May 12, 2019 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ Also, thanks for trying out \text. $\endgroup$ May 12, 2019 at 22:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Davide Right, no problem with SVG. With CommonHTML it is bad at 80,90% and good at 75,100.110,125%. $\endgroup$ May 12, 2019 at 22:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque, I suspect that the issue is that the MathJax fonts are not well hinted. I'm not a font expert, but in my experience, font hinting has always been much more critical in Windows, and the results, especially at small sizes, have typically been poorer there. It looks the top of the T may be one pixel low, probably due to a difference in rounding. Both the outlines themselves, and the hinting, were algorithmically generated, and that leads to some variation in the control point positions from letter to letter, and so to potential rounding problems. $\endgroup$ May 12, 2019 at 23:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You might try switching to the STIX fonts or one of the other web fonts to see if there is a difference (in HTML-CSS -- they aren't available in CommonHTML). Try entering MathJax.Menu.showFontMenu(true) in the browser console windows that should make an extra menu available in the MathJax contextual menu. Choose STIX (Web) in the font submenu of the math setting menu and see if that helps (it will reload the page in order to make the change). $\endgroup$ May 12, 2019 at 23:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Davide If I change the defaults then I would no longer see how my posts render for the majority of readers (who presumably use the defaults). $\endgroup$ May 12, 2019 at 23:49
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque, actually a number of people will be getting STIX fonts automatically from HTML-CSS output. Those who have STIX installed locally (and idon'thave MathJax fonts installed locally) will have output using STIX. For example, Xander's screen snapshot appears to be using the STIX fonts. So switching to STIX it not necessarily bad, and does represent what a number of people will see. $\endgroup$ May 13, 2019 at 10:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Davide What are the current defaults for renderer and fonts? Are they context dependent? $\endgroup$ May 13, 2019 at 12:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Davide I've got some on my list over a couple decades old. so I can relate to that. Maybe someone else will volunteer with the exposure given here. Thanks for all the superb work on MathJax. No doubt there are much less trivial things on your MathJax todo list so apologies for bothering you about something so minor. $\endgroup$ May 13, 2019 at 22:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque, thank you for your kind words. We are working hard on v3.0, which should be out in the very near future. The fonts need an overhaul, and that is planned, not for v3.0, but for v3.1, so I probably will get to that sooner rather than later. $\endgroup$ May 13, 2019 at 22:57

3 Answers 3

6
$\begingroup$

(Posted as an answer, as comments don't support images)

This seems to be a problem with whatever software you are using. Under Opera version 58.0.3135.132 (under Mac OS), I see the following:

enter image description here

Perhaps you could specify the browser you are using?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What level Zoom are you using? $\endgroup$ May 11, 2019 at 22:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque Whatever the default is. It looks fine under Chrome and Safari, too. Again, it would be helpful to know what your configuration is, as it would appear that neither Asaf nor I see what you are seeing. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    May 11, 2019 at 22:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is now in the OP. Thanks for checking on your platform. $\endgroup$ May 11, 2019 at 22:35
5
$\begingroup$

On a $64$-bit Win$7$ computer, accessed through a remote terminal connection, using FireFox $66.0.5$, I can reproduce the problem, but only at $100$% zoom. At $90$% or $110$%, it looks fine. However, on the same machine, using the same version of Chrome $74.0.3729.131$ as you have, the problem doesn't occur at $110$%, $100$%, $90$% and $67$% zoom, but it does happen at $80$% & $75$% zoom. On a $64$-bit Windows $10$ machine, with a $1280$x$1024$ resolution, using Microsoft Edge version $44.17763.1.0$, the problem occurs at all zoom levels I tried, i.e., $50$%, $75$%, $100$%, $125$% and $150$% (but it seems to be minimal for the $125$% & $150$% zoom).

If need be, I can try different OS's & browsers, but I believe what I've described above shows there is no simple pattern and, perhaps, no simple solution. Overall, I suspect it depends on various factors, including the fonts being used, the screen resolution, the MathJax renderer, the browser, the OS, etc.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes, it probably depends on motley factors and is likely related to the $x$-waves bug I reported a few years ago. If only it didn't occur on such a frequently used term. Thanks for the troubleshooting help. $\endgroup$ May 11, 2019 at 23:35
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque You are welcome for the troubleshooting help. My biggest display issue is with how numeric digits are shown by default. To avoid that, I usually show them inside MathJax statements instead. For me, it's still not completely correct, but it's noticeably better. $\endgroup$ May 12, 2019 at 0:00
0
$\begingroup$

$$\overset{C\hspace{-2px}R\style{zoom:1.1}{T}}{\iff}$$

\overset{C\hspace{-3px}R\style{zoom:1.1}{T}}{\iff}

Works in my browser currently ( with htmlcss or SVG renderer, all of common html,preview html makes the T bigger) but seems a little annoying to type out. chrome version 76 something at my local library.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ I was on a desktop, but on mobile ( beta browser) now the t looks too big. $\endgroup$
    – user645636
    Aug 26, 2019 at 14:41
  • $\begingroup$ Here the T looks too small. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Aug 26, 2019 at 15:44
  • $\begingroup$ is it any bigger than the original ? $\endgroup$
    – user645636
    Aug 26, 2019 at 15:45
  • $\begingroup$ It looks smaller than the C and the R; it looks mostly like in screen shot in OP. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Aug 26, 2019 at 15:46
  • $\begingroup$ At zoom 90% and 110% the look the same size, the CRT I mean. I did not yet find one where the T looks larger. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Aug 26, 2019 at 15:47
  • $\begingroup$ $$\stackrel{CRT}{\iff}$$ $\endgroup$
    – user645636
    Aug 26, 2019 at 15:52
  • $\begingroup$ The comment looks good to me. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Aug 26, 2019 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ uses stackrel instead of overset. an equivalent mentioned in the LaTeX wikibook. $\endgroup$
    – user645636
    Aug 26, 2019 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ only difference I can spot in developer mode is that one uses italics versions the other doesn't seem to. $\endgroup$
    – user645636
    Aug 28, 2019 at 13:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .