TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What I'm doing:


% don't know what some of those do, but i think all the math related ones are
% there
% there are more packages being imported though

Then I try:

\textbf{w_{n+1}} = \textbf{w_{n}} + e\eta\textbf{x}(n) \\
\textbf{\Delta}\textbf{w} = e\eta\textbf{x}

% above doesn't work, complains about missing $

\textbf{$w_{n+1}$} = \textbf{$w_{n}$} + e\eta\textbf{$x$}(n) \\
\textbf{$\Delta$}\textbf{$w$} = e\eta\textbf{$x$}

% above compiles, but no bold and no newline
share|improve this question
up vote 11 down vote accepted

You could bold an equation with \boldsymbol. Use \align for multiline equation with alignment.

\boldsymbol{w_{n+1}} &= \boldsymbol{w_n} + e\eta\boldsymbol{x}(n) \\
\boldsymbol{\Delta w} &= e\eta\boldsymbol{x}
share|improve this answer
Tried both \boldsymbol and \boldmath and neither worked. Without the $ it compiles, but then the text isn't bold. And with the $ it doesn't compile. – bada Aug 8 '10 at 7:10
@bada: Try to \usepackage{amsbsy} — although amsmath already loaded it. – kennytm Aug 8 '10 at 7:21
I added a \begin{split} after the \begin{align} and an \end{split} before the \end{align} and it worked the way I wanted. – bada Aug 8 '10 at 7:32
try \(\mathbf{A}\) inside math environment or \boldmath\(A\) before it – Crowley Aug 9 '10 at 7:19

\textbf is for text mode, not math mode. Also, inline math ($ ... $) is for use inline, and so does not produce new lines. This is pretty basic math stuff for TeX: perhaps you should read something like Math Mode by Herbert Voss (type texdoc mathmode at the Terminal/Command Line).

I think you would be best using the align environment:

  \mathbf{w_{n+1}}  &= \mathbf{w_{n}} + e\eta\mathbf{x}(n) \\
  \mathbf{\Delta w} &= e\eta\mathbf{x}
share|improve this answer
I'm getting a black square instead of \Delta when I use that. With \delta it's fine though. Do you know how I could fix it? Also, this gives the second line an equation number of its own, which isn't what I need. ;/ – bada Aug 8 '10 at 7:18
\usepackage{bm} \bmdefine\bDelta{\Delta} And then use \bDelta to get a bold \Delta – Martin Heller Aug 8 '10 at 11:40

Use $\mathbf{w_{n+1}}$. However, if you want bold symbols, you'd have to use $\pmb{\eta}$

share|improve this answer

It is unfortunate that the comment of Crowley here above is not more highlighted. He give me the answer I search : using \boldmath before the eqn environment, all the math portion is in bold font and the text stay normal.

An example of my code:

    p(X,Y) \Leftrightarrow
                & minimal(X) \\
                & \qquad \wedge directly-solve(X,Y) &&\mbox{ (cas de base)}\\
                & \vee \\
                & \neg minimal(X) \\
                & \qquad \wedge decompose(X,partX,restX) &&\mbox{ (diviser)}\\
                & \qquad \wedge process(partX,part-Y) &&\mbox{ (traitement interne)}\\
                & \qquad \wedge p(restX,restY) &&\mbox{ (appel récursif)}\\
                & \qquad \wedge compose(partY,restY,Y) &&\mbox{ (recomposer)}\\



share|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.