[Tex/LaTex] Conflict between \mathabx and \amssymb

amssymbincompatibilitymathabxsymbols

I need to use \ldbrack and \rdbrack symbols from the package \mathabx, but when I use the \mathabx with the \amssymb package (previously installed) it is causing me an issue with symbols: \subseteq, \cap, \cup, etc

\documentclass{book}   
\usepackage{amssymb} 
\usepackage{mathabx}

\begin{document}

This a example, 

$$A\subseteq B=\emptyset A\cap B\cup C$$

$$x + y \ldbrack z \rdbrack$$
\end{document}

The following picture was created using \mathabx and \amssymb.

And the following picture was created using only \amssymb.

Please notice that on imagen 1, \cap, \cup, etc; are different and I require the other ones.

Is there a way to use both packages without mess up my document symbols?
Thanks.

Best Answer

The mathabx package is not compatible with amssymb; besides, it changes all math symbols.

You can use, instead, stmaryrd.

\documentclass{book}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{stmaryrd}

\begin{document}

\begin{gather*}
A\subseteq B=\emptyset \\
A\cap B\cup C \\
x + y \llbracket z \rrbracket
\end{gather*}

\end{document}

If you want to import the symbols from mathabx, according to the guidelines in Importing a Single Symbol From a Different Font you can do as follows.

\documentclass{book}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}

\DeclareFontFamily{U}{matha}{}
\DeclareFontShape{U}{matha}{m}{n}{
  <-5.5>    matha5
  <5.5-6.5> matha6 
  <6.5-7.5> matha7
  <7.5-8.5> matha8
  <8.5-9.5> matha9
  <9.5-11>  matha10
  <11->     matha12
}{}
\DeclareSymbolFont{matha}{U}{matha}{m}{n}
\DeclareFontSubstitution{U}{matha}{m}{n}
\DeclareFontFamily{U}{mathx}{\hyphenchar\font45}
\DeclareFontShape{U}{mathx}{m}{n}{<-> mathx10}{}
\DeclareSymbolFont{mathx}{U}{mathx}{m}{n}
\DeclareFontSubstitution{U}{mathx}{m}{n}

\DeclareMathDelimiter{\ldbrack}{4}{matha}{"76}{mathx}{"30}
\DeclareMathDelimiter{\rdbrack}{5}{matha}{"77}{mathx}{"38}

\begin{document}

\begin{gather*}
A\subseteq B=\emptyset \\
A\cap B\cup C \\
x + y \ldbrack z \rdbrack
\end{gather*}

\end{document}

Related Solutions

[Tex/LaTex] Conflict between mathtools and MnSymbol

As far as I can tell, MnSymbol undefines \lhook because it provides ready made "hooked arrows", while \lhook is used for building them from "normal arrows" in the default math fonts.

Just write, after loading MnSymbol,

\let\originallhook\lhook
\usepackage{MnSymbol}
\let\lhook\originallhook

but what's obtained with \xhookrightarrow won't be perfect. A bit better is

\let\originallhook\lhook
\usepackage{MnSymbol}
\newcommand{\lhook}{\mathrel{\raise.018ex\hbox{$\originallhook$}}}

On the other hand, you should look at the specialized package Xy-pic or at the more general TikZ for building diagrams.

[Tex/LaTex] Package mathabx results in tiny square as QED

You can use

\let\oldsquare\square

before loading mathabx and then use \oldsquare in your definition:

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\let\oldsquare\square
\usepackage{mathabx}

\newenvironment{prf}{\underline{\textbf{Proof:}}}{\hfill$\oldsquare$}

\begin{document}

\begin{prf}
This is my proof using mathabx.
\end{prf}

\end{document}

enter image description here

The proof environment from the amsthm package doesn't use \square, but \openbox as the end-mark, so you can define this command as amsthm.sty does and use it for your definition:

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{mathabx}

\newcommand{\openbox}{\leavevmode
  \hbox to.77778em{%
  \hfil\vrule
  \vbox to.675em{\hrule width.6em\vfil\hrule}%
  \vrule\hfil}}
\newenvironment{prf}{\underline{\textbf{Proof:}}}{\hfill$\openbox$}

\begin{document}

\begin{prf}
This is my proof using mathabx.
\end{prf}

\end{document}

enter image description here

I'd suggest you, however, to use the amsthm package and its built-in proof environment to typeset your proofs. This will give you, amongst other, proper spacing before and after the proofs, proper placement of the end-mark, no indentation for the first line.

In the follwoing example I used both environments for comparison (I suppressed the underlining, since it is not a typographical good practise, but you can add it back of you really need it):

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{mathabx}
\usepackage{amsthm}

\newenvironment{prf}{\underline{\textbf{Proof:}}}{\hfill$\openbox$}
\renewcommand\proofname{\normalfont\bfseries Proof:}

\begin{document}

\begin{prf}
This is my proof using mathabx.
\end{prf}

\begin{proof}
This is my proof using mathabx amnd amsthm.
\end{proof}

\end{document}

enter image description here

mathabx also offers \boxvoid, but this produces a square that it's slightly bigger than the regular \openbox command.

Are you sure you want to use mathabx? I ask you because the package redefines many math symbols (as you've already experienced). If you are interestef just in a particular symbol from mathabx, then Importing a Single Symbol From a Different Font shows you how to import the symbol without loading the package.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

[Tex/LaTex] Conflict between mathtools and MnSymbol

[Tex/LaTex] Package mathabx results in tiny square as QED

Related Question