Tag Info

New answers tagged


Here's an alternative that perhaps provides a more natural syntax. I define \foo as an operator in which \sigma is scaled to the same vertical extent as \sum. Note that \foo operates without any inset lettering. Then I define an auxiliary macro \fooinset{inset} if one wishes an inset a letter inside of \foo. The way I've defined it, normal sub and ...


Just for fun with plain TeX \def\cpm{% \mathchoice% {\xcpm\displaystyle{.2ex}{.53ex}}% displaystyle {\xcpm\textstyle{.2ex}{.53ex}}% textstyle {\xcpm\scriptstyle{.16ex}{.43ex}}% scriptstyle {\xcpm\scriptscriptstyle{.11ex}{.35ex}}% scriptscriptstyle } \def\xcpm#1#2#3{\mathbin{\ooalign{% \raise #2\hbox{\pdfliteral{0 1 0 rg}$#1+$\pdfliteral{0 ...


\documentclass{article} \usepackage{stackengine,xcolor} \def\cpm{\mathbin{\ensurestackMath{\abovebaseline[-3.4pt]{% \stackunder[-3.5pt]{\color{green!70}+}{\color{red}-}}}}} \begin{document} $1\pm2\cpm3$ \end{document} If you need a version that works across math styles (EDITED to add \cmp support): \documentclass{article} ...


If you want it to be literally the size of \sum, then this twist will scale the \Delta to match the vertical footprint of \sum. \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath,scalerel} \DeclareMathOperator*{\Del}{\scalerel*{\Delta}{\sum}} \begin{document} $\Del_{i=0}^n x_i=0$ \[\Del_{i=0}^n x_i=0\] \end{document}


You can do it with \DeclareMathOperator* provided by amsmath. Refer to amsmath manual, page 17 for more details. \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \DeclareMathOperator*{\Del}{\Delta} \begin{document} $\Del_x^y=0$ \[\Del_x^y=0\] \end{document}


With picture mode: \documentclass{article} \usepackage{pict2e} \makeatletter \newcommand{\nnoteq}{\mathrel{\mathpalette\nnot@eq\relax}} \newcommand{\nnot@eq}[2]{% \sbox\z@{$\m@th#1=$}% \vcenter{\rlap{% \setlength{\unitlength}{\wd0}% \begin{picture}(1,1) \linethickness{0.4pt}% \ifx#1\scriptstyle \linethickness{.9\@wholewidth}% ...


This could probably be optimized a little more: \documentclass{article} \usepackage{centernot,graphicx} \newcommand{\xequal}{\mathrel{\mathchoice {\centernot{\reflectbox{$\neq$}}} {\centernot{\reflectbox{$\neq$}}} {\centernot{\reflectbox{$\scriptstyle\neq$}}} {\centernot{\reflectbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\neq$}}}}} \begin{document} $a = b \xequal ...


\documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath,graphicx} \newcommand{\mynoteq}{\mathrel{\text{$\ooalign{$=$\cr\hidewidth$\mycross$\hidewidth\cr}$}}} \newcommand{\mycross}{% \vcenter{\hbox{\scalebox{1.3}{$\times$}}} } \begin{document} $ a \mynoteq d_{a \mynoteq d_{a \mynoteq d}}$ $ a \mynoteq d^{a \mynoteq d^{a \mynoteq d}}$ $ a = d$ ...


An alternative that works in all math styles... REVISED SOLUTION (closed circle-arrow) This is something of a stretch, and so I leave my original solution below. The OP wanted the circle-arrow part of the result to be a closed (not open) circle. Ideally, one could locate such a glyph and substitute its use for the other. However, no such glyph could be ...


The Unicode engines luatex and xetex have the advantage, that colour is taken as a property of the font itself, rather than being added on top of it. The unicode-math allows to load Unicode math fonts with a certain colour specification. Here we first of all load Latin Modern Math for the entire math mode and proceed to load Latin Modern Math for the ...


Here's a possibility. Only text and display style, I hope you don't need them in subscripts, superscripts or small fractions. \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,graphicx} \makeatletter \newcommand*{\sumcirclearrowleft}{% \DOTSB \mathop{ \mathchoice {\rlap{\kern.25em\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowleft$}}{\sum}} ...


Correct would be something like $1 \le k \le B$, $k \notin S$. Elipses are ambiguous... Don't try to reduce everything to symbols, that easily turns into utter gibberish. What you write is for humans to understand, symbols (particularly less familiar ones) just stand in the way.


I would try for $k\in\{1,2,\dots,B \mid k\not\in \mathbf{s} \}$. Presumably, B is an integer and \mathbf{s} is a set of integers ranging from 1 to B, right?


Normally, it's just \cdot, it's what people are used to and it doesn't look small in $(G,{\cdot})$ to me. Anyway, if you want a bigger dot, you can load the package \usepackage{bm} after any other font package, and then define \newcommand\bigcdot{\bm{\cdot}} and use this.

Top 50 recent answers are included