Minimal working example:
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\[ {A^\mu}_\nu \]
\[ {\bar{A}^\mu}_\nu \]
\end{document}
The result is
.
Why is the placement of upper and lower indices in the second one wrong?
|
Minimal working example:
The result is Why is the placement of upper and lower indices in the second one wrong? |
|||
|
From the TeXbook, p. 290:
So in the first example
the <math field> is
we are in the other situation, because Why did Knuth choose to do this? I don't really know, but the main reason could be the connected to making double accents. In a case such as
one would like to put the second bar over |
|||
|
|
|
the question is not why is the positioning of the subscript "wrong" in the second example, but why is it the way it is in the first. in "normal" circumstances, the positioning of the subscript in the second is what is wanted, not the "offset" arrangement -- unless you're indicating a tensor, in which case the order and position is different. clearly, you want the offset. this input will give that result:
in fact, the
i'll have to leave it to someone else to say why there isn't any offset with your second example. |
|||
|
|
\usepackage{amsmath}to make it really minimal... ;-) – jfbu Dec 3 '12 at 18:27