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

In dealing with continued fractions in LaTeX, I've become less and less enamored of the \cfrac construct. Especially in my case where I deal with complicated numerators and denominators, listing a few terms can get unwieldy.

I encountered a nice notation for CFs in Lorentzen and Waadeland's "Continued Fractions with Applications" that seemed to be adaptable to my needs. I have no digital copy of the book, so I offer Wolfram's approximation on how this operator is rendered:

continued fraction

(the only difference is that the b terms come before the a terms, and they are separated by a backslash (this is why I asked this question, so I now know how to render the operands and the delimiters properly))

My question now, then, is how can I construct a "continued fraction operator" that acts like \sum and \product? Somehow, trying to use a large letter K and then putting the limits as over- and underscripts has been a bit of a mixed bag (and of course, if the operands themselves are fractions, I have to manually tweak the size of the "K" again!). Might there be a more elegant approach to this?

share|improve this question
2  
Wikipedia says the notation is due to Gauss. Despite its distinguished origin, I don't like it: I have to consciously resist cancelling the fraction. Better to add some sign to the fraction, say a trailing vertical slash on the denominator, to indicate this isn't a real fraction. – Charles Stewart Aug 24 '10 at 10:01
    
That's actually why I substitute a backslash for a slash in my set of notes, and then place b before a; at least for me it reinforces psychologically that this is not your "typical" fraction. I'm of course not entirely sure that my modification will catch on, but what can you do... :) – user914 Aug 24 '10 at 12:36

I'd define a new operator:

\newcommand{\K}{\operatornamewithlimits{K}}

You can then do the following:

Math-mode example:
\[
        \K_{k=0}^\infty \frac{a_k}{b_k}
\]
or inline $\K_k \frac{a_k}{b_k}$.

And get:

alt text

(Note that you must \usepackage{amsmath}.)

share|improve this answer
    
The documentation for amsmath says \operatorname* gives this behavior but doesn't mention \operatornamewithlimits at all. Is this an undocumented synonym? – Mark Meckes Aug 24 '10 at 17:26
    
You know, I'm not sure where I picked up this trick. I use it for argmax and argmin. – Geoff Aug 24 '10 at 20:45
    
Egh, I guess I was unclear! I said the notation at Wolfram was just an approximation! (What I was trying to do looks something like K(b\a) with the appropriate over- and underscripts.) I think I can use this, however. Thanks! – user914 Aug 24 '10 at 22:07

Using

\newcommand{\bigk}{\mathop{\raisebox{-5pt}{\huge K}}}

gives a fairly good result. Your example would be:

\[ \bigk_{k=0}^\infty \frac{a_k}{b_k} \]
share|improve this answer
    
To use your \bigk, the notation I would actually be using would be something like \[ \bigk_{k=0}^\infty \bigl (b_k \bigm\backslash a_k \bigr ) \] ; would this scale properly if, say, I replace the a_k and b_k with a \frac construct? – user914 Aug 23 '10 at 6:17
    
@J. Mangaldan: Do \sum and \product scale automatically? I don't see that they do? – Lev Bishop Aug 23 '10 at 6:30
2  
I would use \vcenter{\hbox{...}} rather than \raisebox{-5pt}{...} – Lev Bishop Aug 23 '10 at 6:31
    
Lev: Odd... I tried it out: latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{\frac{\ln(j+1)}{j!}‌​}{\binom{n}{j}} just now... I suppose my memory was mistaken. So using that construct would make the K act like \sum, \product, and \int? – user914 Aug 23 '10 at 6:39

Your Answer

 
discard

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