![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d558f7d2c62b984d42b1e276bbdfc2c7.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 19 Dec 2018, at 19:01, Alan Braslau
wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:46:30 +0100 Hans Åberg
wrote: Though probably non-standard in typesetting, one might make a slight typographic difference between 𝑥²₀ and 𝑥₀² by letting the sub- or superscripts that come later partially, but not fully, to the position of the one that comes before. For example, 𝑥₀² might mean the square of 𝑥₀, and 𝑥²₀ the component 0 of 𝑥², not necessarily the same. Traditionally, such things are left for the reader to interpret.
Isn't that poor nomenclature, being ambiguous?
Indeed, but also the norm due to practical limitations.
I would explicitly write (𝑥₀)² or (𝑥²)₀ in such cases, and I have also seen 𝑥²|₀ used for example, or other non-ambiguous shorthands.
Perhaps it might become cumbersome to carry such notation along all through, reserving it for definitions.