From c7a3627b6392a53a06f297822fcadd711ac4c986 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Francis Russell Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:59:38 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Use Unicode longrightarrows in text. The longrightarrows in math mode render poorly. Replace them with the Unicode longrightarrow and then declare that to be rightarrow since LaTeX has issues with it. --- relat10.tex | 14 +++++++++----- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/relat10.tex b/relat10.tex index ad8b591..7e21dae 100644 --- a/relat10.tex +++ b/relat10.tex @@ -76,8 +76,12 @@ \renewcommand{\thesection}{\alph{section}.} %\renewcommand{\thesection}{} +\usepackage{ucs} \usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} +% Declare "longrightarrow" as "rightarrow" as the fomer never renders well. +\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{10230}{→} + \begin{document} %\gtitle{Relativity: The Special and General Theory} @@ -747,8 +751,8 @@ raise the following objection: "Your definition would certainly be right, if only I knew that the light by means of which the observer at M perceives the lightning -flashes travels along the length A~$\longrightarrow$~M with the same velocity as -along the length B~$\longrightarrow$~M. But an examination of this supposition +flashes travels along the length A⟶M with the same velocity as +along the length B⟶M. But an examination of this supposition would only be possible if we already had at our disposal the means of measuring time. It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle." @@ -762,7 +766,7 @@ made of the definition of simultaneity, namely, that in every real case it must supply us with an empirical decision as to whether or not the conception that has to be defined is fulfilled. That my definition satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same -time to traverse the path A~$\longrightarrow$~M as for the path B~$\longrightarrow$~M is in +time to traverse the path A⟶M as for the path B⟶M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity." @@ -870,9 +874,9 @@ answer must be in the negative. When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to be embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the -mid-point M of the length A $\longrightarrow$ B of the embankment. But the events +mid-point M of the length A⟶B of the embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M$'$ be -the mid-point of the distance A $\longrightarrow$ B on the travelling train. Just +the mid-point of the distance A⟶B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes (as judged from the embankment) of lightning occur, this point M$'$ naturally coincides with the point M but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train. If -- 2.47.3