Take the 2-minute tour ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

What is the correct way of breaking such unnumbered equation into multiple lines?

\begin{equation*}

\lim_{\bigtriangleup t \to 0^+}\int_{\bigtriangleup t}^{T} \! \int_{\Omega} \! D(t_1,x) \frac{\varphi(t_1-\bigtriangleup t,x)-\varphi(t_1,x)}{(-\bigtriangleup t)} \, \mathrm{d}x \, \mathrm{d}t_1 

=\lim_{\bigtriangleup t \to 0^+} \int_{0}^{T} \! \int_{\Omega} \! D(t_1,x) \frac{\varphi(t_1-\bigtriangleup t,x)-\varphi(t_1,x)}{(-\bigtriangleup t)} \chi_{(\bigtriangleup t,T)}(t_1) \, \mathrm{d}x \, \mathrm{d}t_1 

= \int_{0}^{T} \! \int_{\Omega} \! D(t_1,x) \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial t_1} (t_1,x) \, \mathrm{d}x \, \mathrm{d}t_1 .

\end{equation*}

It's not an equation actually, I'm proving something in my thesis and I'm just modifying a math expression. So \multline is not this case I think. I used \split but then it can be aligned to the right side or the left side only because the expressions are too long and it would overfull.

share|improve this question
1  
Welcome to TeX.sx! Have a look at mathmode with a lot of examples: ctan.org/pkg/voss-mathmode –  Marco Daniel Apr 21 '13 at 13:02
    
@MarcoDaniel Thank you, this could be really helpful. –  vessel Apr 21 '13 at 13:18
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 5 down vote accepted

This is a tough formula to typeset; there is no "right way", such complex formulas often need specific treatment which depend on their size and also on subtle semantic issues.

Here is my proposal: the initial term is set on a line by itself and the two developments below it with aligned equals, indented to the right.

I changed \bigtriangleup into the customary \Delta; I also added a definition for the differential symbol that spares you from explicit \, commands. Finally I changed the definition of \phi to produce \varphi, so you can change them all to the "closed" variant by simply commenting the redefinition.

Why aligned inside equation*? Because this is a single block, so if you decide to number it, you can simply remove the *. With align* the result would be identical, but numbering it would require more steps.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\newcommand{\diff}{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}
\renewcommand{\phi}{\varphi}

\begin{document}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\Delta t \to 0^+}
& \int_{\Delta t}^{T} \int_{\Omega} 
   D(t_1,x)
   \frac{\phi(t_1-\Delta t,x)-\phi(t_1,x)}{(-\Delta t)}
   \diff x \diff t_1 
\\
&=\lim_{\Delta t \to 0^+} 
  \int_{0}^{T} \! \int_{\Omega}
  D(t_1,x) 
  \frac{\phi(t_1-\Delta t,x)-\phi(t_1,x)}{(-\Delta t)}
  \chi_{(\Delta t,T)}(t_1)
  \diff x \diff t_1 
\\
&=\int_{0}^{T} \! \int_{\Omega}
  D(t_1,x)
  \frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t_1}(t_1,x)
  \diff x \diff t_1 .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\end{document}

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
    
Oh, that's an exhaustive answer, thank you. I will use it. –  vessel Apr 21 '13 at 13:22
1  
+1 for paying such nice close attention to the semantics. If I could upvote twice I'd do it again for the time you spent. –  Ethan Bolker Apr 21 '13 at 13:39
add comment

For example:

\documentclass{article}

\begin{document} 
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
\lim_{\bigtriangleup t \to 0^+}\int_{\bigtriangleup t}^{T} \! \int_{\Omega} \! D(t_1,x) \frac{\varphi(t_1-\bigtriangleup t,x)-\varphi(t_1,x)}{(-\bigtriangleup t)} \, \mathrm{d}x \, \mathrm{d}t_1 
}\\
&=&\lim_{\bigtriangleup t \to 0^+} \int_{0}^{T} \! \int_{\Omega} \! D(t_1,x) \frac{\varphi(t_1-\bigtriangleup t,x)-\varphi(t_1,x)}{(-\bigtriangleup t)} \chi_{(\bigtriangleup t,T)}(t_1) \, \mathrm{d}x \, \mathrm{d}t_1 
\\
&= &\int_{0}^{T} \! \int_{\Omega} \! D(t_1,x) \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial t_1} (t_1,x) \, \mathrm{d}x \, \mathrm{d}t_1 .
\end{eqnarray*}

But you'd rather write \Delta instead of \bigtriangleup.

share|improve this answer
3  
eqnarray! Run for your lives! –  Jubobs Apr 21 '13 at 13:10
    
@Jubobs I do know eqnarray's limitations. But I also know, how to adjust this environment. –  Przemysław Scherwentke Apr 21 '13 at 13:17
    
@PrzemysławScherwentke Thank you, this is looking well. Is there a rule of how to line-break equations and math expressions? For example would it be considered wrong if I separated each line by $$ and then it would be all centred? –  vessel Apr 21 '13 at 13:17
1  
@PrzemysławScherwentke Really, never ever use eqnarray. –  egreg Apr 21 '13 at 13:20
    
@vessel Sugested eqnarray is the simplest one, making 3 columns. If you need more sophisticated breaking, please consider using of the amsmath package. –  Przemysław Scherwentke Apr 21 '13 at 13:21
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.