Relevant links: http://tex.stackexchange.com/q/1166/86 http://tex.stackexchange.com/q/503/86 http://tex.stackexchange.com/q/510/86

@Kevin: Yow! :)

Doesn't everyone have their keyboard configured to make TeX easier to type?

The problem is not configuring the keyboard, but reconfiguring the neural synapses after years of using QWERTY keyboards. Having said that, Emacs makes it virtually painless to type (LaTeX) code and luckily I have emacs hardwired in the brain :)

I do think Andrew's point about speed is a very valid one. Every once in a while MathJax hangs so long that Firefox wonders aloud whether the script has stopped responding; I really don't want it to happen even more often.

I'd like a speed test before the decision between 2 and 3 is made. I suspect that either possible implementation of 3 (that Scott mentions) will be significantly slower than 2. MathJaX is not so fast that it is unnoticeable, I still load a page, watch all the squiggles disappear, and slowly reappear as rendered mathematics. If the shortcuts significantly add to the page load, I would argue against them. Assuming that MathJaX behaves like LaTeX and that braces are not required except for grouping (can someone confirm that this is indeed the case? And point to the relevant piece of MathJaX documentation? Apologies to AgCl for doubting, but given that I doubt he/she was named "Silver Chloride" then I would like more evidence than anon's word.), then there is hardly any difference between \bb Z and \bbZ. One could avoid the confusion over \bf by defining it to be \mbf, but I wouldn't worry about the confusion too much as there are enough differences between what one types here and normal LaTeX that everyone should be on their guard for discrepancies. It's not as if you can take an answer here and send it straight to tex without any post-processing.

(Not that typing braces should be of any discombobulation. Doesn't everyone have their keyboard configured to make TeX easier to type?)

As to the debate between 𝑹 and ℝ, I find the latter much easier to distinguish from surrounding text. It is much easier for me to see that ℝ is something special, especially if I want to emphasise that it is the reals 𝑹 and not the integers 𝒁 (compare with: reals ℝ and not the integers ℤ.)

Also, agree with #3 for David's reason.

Incidentally, it seems we've already moved past any suggestion of defining meanings for all of \A,...,\Z, but in case it comes up it should be pointed out that some of those (\P and \L for at least) are already defined in LaTeX.

On another matter, is it correct that those of us who never made the transition from Plain TeX to LaTeX can use \def where it has been suggested to use \newcommand?

Nope, \def won't work. The preview is accurate, so you should be able to determine what will work before actually posting.

I see no reason to remain faithful to compromises made because of inadequate technology. It's enough that I have to type on a QWERTY keyboard :)

As Anton points out, you can just use \newcommand{} as you please, at a per post level. Beyond that, we can install macros in a magic configuration file (that is, when the HTML that we serve tells your browser to load the MathJax library, we can pass it some configuration information, including new macros).

Now, there are I think three main proposals for what those macros should be:

1. Only a handful of macros, for the most common bold face letters, e.g. \Z for \mathbb{Z}.
2. Abbreviations for the commands \mathbb, etc. so you could type \bb Z instead of \mathbb{Z}. We'd also do this for \mathbf, \mathcal, and a few others.
3. Abbreviations for the whole alphabet in various variations, so you could type \bbZ instead of \mathbb{Z}.

Some comments:

1. is super easy to implement, but might contradict "the principle of least surprise", as people won't know which letters are provided.
2. is also easy to implement. There's slight danger here, as some of the obvious contractions, e.g. \bf, might not play well with TeX (as opposed to LaTeX). (I don't actually know whether this is really a problem or not.)
3. is slightly more complicated to implement; we need to either list lots of new macros, or include a macro that lets you apply a function to everything in a list, e.g. here, and then use that.

One advantage of 2) over 3) is that you can see type \bb{AB}, whereas for 3) you'd have to type \bbA\bbB.

Nevertheless, 3) is my preferred option, mostly because it's what I'm used to at home! :-)

I was suggesting shorthand names for the fonts (which are essentially the same as before, just without the math- prefix). I think I got most of the important ones, but if I remember correctly, for some reason, we don't have rsfs installed (I think Andrew Stacey complained when we discussed it because it might increase loading times or something). Could we also have rsfs, Anton?

In addition to that, I'll let you in on a secret: you can define your own macros within a post. For example, if you're typing a lot of \mathbb{Z}'s in a given question/answer, you can do it like this:

$\newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}}$ Now I can type things like $\Z$ and $\Z/p\Z$ easily!

In this particular case, another question would be what to output: \mathbf{Z} or \mathbb{Z} (I use \Z for \mathbb{Z}). Maybe only shortening the commands, as per Harry's suggestion, would be fairer - neither \mathbf nor \mathbb would be given preference by having the macro use it.

Also: \opn for \operatorname ?

I'm happy enough with Harry's suggestion. Another possiblity is to define whole alphabets of abbreviations, e.g. \bbA for a blackboard bold A, \cB for a caligraphic B, etc.

Also +1 Harry's suggestion, as long as those don't collide with something already defined. (\bf of course is problematic in plain LaTeX, but maybe okay within the limited confines of MathJax?)

Also, could we have an alias for \operatorname? Every time I type it, my soul is crushed a little more.