I would like to create a new symbol for WLOG (= without loss of generality), since there doesn't seem to be any around. I have some variants and I'd like a 'vote of confidence' on either from the community. Would you close such question? (Before you answer, please take a look at: Is there another symbol that is slightly different from \forall (likewise for \exists)?)
I think it's better to ask a specific question like the one you linked to. Something like, "How would I create the following symbol that would represent 'without loss of generality'?":
And then include an image like above, together with a sample usage and possible dimensions. A generic question about the symbol might not lead to it being helpful for future users, since the final choice of the "most helpful" answer could be very subjective. The StackExchange network - in most cases - doesn't works much better in a definitive Q&A style than asking questions that seek generic advice on topics. Perhaps also refer to Don't ask us about best practices, glom of nit, or Mrs Cake.
Since the title is now "Opinion on a symbol", I'd like to give mine.
Symbols in mathematics are not abbreviations. Using
\because in a mathematical text is wrong, unless they are used in a formal proof with a well defined meaning. But plain mathematical proofs are usually not formal proof: they should be understandable by the reader and symbols should denote mathematical entities, not linguistic ones.
So I never use
\exists in a proof; sometimes I indulge in a
\iff in a set of displayed formulas, but very sparingly and only when they convey a mathematical, rather than linguistic, meaning.
One of my first duties when converting to LaTeX some papers written by a friend and colleague was
find "w.l.o.g." and replace it with "without loss of generality"
She knew about this and accepted it, because otherwise she'd have had to learn LaTeX. :)
Do a favor to your readers and use words rather than shorthand.
Finally, in a formal proof there's no way of saying without loss of generality: a formal proof must check all possibilities. So even there we can't find a use of a symbol.
You could define (this assumes that you're using the
amsmath package and its
Obviously this isn't a symbol (at least not in any sense of the word I'm familiar with), but it would have the advantage of being easily parseable.