This is a question about style, I am debating whether the math operator `\Hom`

should be just

```
\DeclareMathOperator{\Hom}{Hom}
```

or if it should be some variant like

```
\DeclareMathOperator{\Hom}{\mathnormal{Hom}}
```

The reason I'm even considering this is because I'm using the `eulervm`

package. Also, when I write something like `cohomology $H^*(X,Z)$`

, I do not use `\text{H}`

but leave eulervm's mathematical font.

What do you think? Does the question make sense?

Here is a minimal example with the two choices.

```
\documentclass{amsart}
\usepackage{eulervm}
\begin{document}
\[ \operatorname{Hom}(A,B) = 0 \]
\[ \mathnormal{Hom}(A,B) = 0 \]
\[ H^2(X,Z) = 0\]
\[ \operatorname{H}^2(X,Z) = 0\]
\end{document}
```

## Best Answer

Both “Hom” and ”H” are similar to “log”, so they should be typeset in the text font (upright). However it's not a sin to have different opinions.

The most important thing is that you use macro definitions:

Not

`\H`

, because it's already reserved.In the body of the document you'll use only

`\Hom`

and`\HH`

. This way, you can delay the choice to the last moment.Tightening the space in “Hom” in Euler type is not a choice: look at the following picture to see why.

Here's the source for the image