# Tag Info

## Hot answers tagged superscripts

146

You should not use math, when it is normal text. Use \textsuperscript instead: 2\textsuperscript{nd}. You can also define a shortcut for this, e.g. \newcommand{\ts}{\textsuperscript} Then you could use 2\ts{nd} in the text. Edit: An even nicer solution is to load the package nth with the option super and use the \nth command: \nth{1}, \nth{2}, \nth{3}, ...

32

An alternative to nth package is fmtcount. In this case the command is \ordinalnum. By default the ordinal is formatted as superscript, but this is optional, as it is also in nth: \usepackage{fmtcount} % equivalent to \usepackage[super]{nth} \usepackage[level]{fmtcount} % equivalent to \usepackage{nth} But there are some advantages over nth: Limited ...

25

It is not clear what you want the output to be $y\in[0,1]^{d\prime}$ the \prime is in the superscript along with d. If you want the prime to be on d then just use $y\in[0,1]^{d'}$ which is equivalent to $y\in[0,1]^{d^{\prime}}$

25

Here's a shorter version with LaTeX3 functions: \documentclass{article} \usepackage{xparse} \ExplSyntaxOn \NewDocumentCommand{ \powertower } { m m } { #1 \prg_replicate:nn { #2 - 1 } { ^\c_group_begin_token #1 } \prg_replicate:nn { #2 - 1 } { \c_group_end_token } } \ExplSyntaxOff \begin{document} $\powertower{x}{10}$ \end{document} ...

24

I dedicate this code to Sean. :) Long live expl3! :) \documentclass{article} \usepackage{expl3} \usepackage{xparse} \ExplSyntaxOn \cs_new:Npn \paulo_epicrecursion:nn #1 #2 { #1^{ \int_compare:nTF { #2 > 1 } { \paulo_epicrecursion:nn { #1 } { \int_eval:n { #2 - 1 } } } { #1 } } } \NewDocumentCommand{ \powertower } { m m } { ...

23

The following image shows the boxes of each character as seen by tex, for each of the cases in egreg's answer. You can clearly see how the boxes of the parenthesis are "too wide", which causes the exponent to be too far. In addition, using egreg's suggestion (\biggl() removes unwanted space before the box of the left parenthesis. Note For generating the ...

22

I think you can justly regard this strange behaviour as kind of a bug in TeX's sub- and superscript positioning algorithm; it doesn't make sense that both the sub- and the superscript are raised. See below for some suggestions on how to fix the problem. At the end I offer a new positioning algorithm, and I compare it with the old algorithm. (Sorry for the ...

21

This is a case where manual adjustment is needed. The coloring has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the shape of the parenthesis, which is quite wide. I'd recommend using \biggl and \biggr, in particular because of the coefficient in front of the open parenthesis. \documentclass{article} \usepackage{xcolor} \begin{document} ...

20

When TeX assembles the various "atoms" of a formula into a whole (a "molecule", if you will), it mainly keeps track of each atom's enclosing rectangular "box", and it arranges the boxes horizontally and vertically according to the rules listed in Appendix G of the TeXbook. In the process of arranging the boxes, TeX doesn't actually "know" what's inside each ...

19

If you are using ConTeXt MkIV, you can even imitate the automatic conversion of MS Word: \usemodule[translate] \translateinput[2nd][2\high{nd}] \enableinputtranslation \starttext On the 2nd of November \unknown \stoptext This will translate all 2nd into 2\high{nd}.

18

' in math mode expands to ^\prime, so your code is equivalent to T^{\prime}_{...}^{...}, which explains the error you get. You can either swap sub- and superscripts to be T'^{...}_{...} (' is defined in a way that merges it with an adjacent superscript), or use \prime inside the superscript as suggested in Werner's answer, so both ...

14

The default positions of sub and superscripts are closer to the baseline in textstyle as TeX tries to maximise the chance that the expression does not disturb the paragraph line spacing. Your first example is the standard setting for inline math, however with the larger scripts caused by the subscripting, TeX has to move them further apart. This is ...

14

The star is treated as binary operator. In the first two cases, there are not enough math atoms for a binary operator, but in the third case, the first star is "multiplicated" with the third star and the second star is set as binary operator with additional spaces. You can get rid of this behaviour by putting the star in braces. Braces in math mode make a ...

14

What? afraid of going beyond 255? not me! This was obtained as $\epictower{x}{600}$. I must point out that this reproduces exactly what TeX would have done (were it not for the limitation to 255 group levels) inclusive of what appears as a quite odd feature regarding extra horizontal spaces; these spaces may be seen from using \fboxes, let me demonstrate ...

14

Let us make things complicated. \documentclass{article} \usepackage{calc} \begin{document} $L^{2,3/4,5/6}_{1,\makebox[\widthof{3/4}]{$\scriptstyle 2,$}\makebox[\widthof{5/6}]{$\scriptstyle 3\hphantom{,}$}}$ \end{document} I agree with Benjamin's comments. Hence an attempt to increase the spaces. \documentclass{article} \usepackage{calc} ...

13

Just for fun, with low level commands: \documentclass{article} \newcommand{\stacked}[2]{% \vcenter{\tabskip=0pt \gdef\separator{/} \halign{$\scriptstyle##$\hfil&&$\scriptstyle\separator##$\hfil\cr #1\cr \noalign{\nointerlineskip\kern.2ex\gdef\separator{\phantom{/}}} #2\crcr \noalign{\kern.275ex} }% }% } ...

13

You have additional $signs in your code snippet. The superscript ^, and subscript _ need to be in math mode. Use$\triangle^m$for superscript. If you want a subscript use$\triangle_m$. If you intention is to make the entire term a sub- or superscript then you'll need to enclose it with a {} group. Note: For the superscript version, I think it looks ... 13 Why is the vertical positioning different in the two expressions? Because in the first case you're adding subscripts and superscripts to the parenthesis, while in the second case the whole subformula is the nucleus of the math atom to which the superscript and subscript fields are added. Is there anything the LaTeX user should pay attention to to get such ... 13 If you are typesetting chemical formula, look up the mhchem package. This allows you to typeset chemical formulae easily. For example: \ce{CO2} has the "2" as a subscript. Neat. \documentclass{article} \usepackage{mhchem} \begin{document} \ce{H2SO4} \end{document} Yields: 12 It's not necessary to go into math mode (explicitly) in order to typeset text symbols: the relevant command is \textsuperscript. For example, your authors can be Jun Zheng\textsuperscript{\textdagger}, Suhail Saquib\textsuperscript{\textasteriskcentered}, ... and the first affiliation \makebox[0pt][r]{\textsuperscript{\textdagger}}Department of ... 12 You could redefine \frac to look ahead: \documentclass{article} \makeatletter \let\old@frac=\frac \def\frac#1#2{% \@ifnextchar^ {\left(\old@frac{#1}{#2}\right)} {\old@frac{#1}{#2}}% } \makeatother \begin{document}$\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}^2$. $\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}^2$ \end{document} This gives: 12 The superscript "th" seems to have come into use in the Victorian age; then it was dropped and it resurrected when some word processor made it their default. See the nice column on TUGboat by Peter Flynn about this (TUGboat 26, n. 3, 2005, p.~196). In mathematical writing such a use can be confused with exponents: what does$i^{th}$mean? Is it "i raised ... 12 You can use \DeclareMathSizes; here's what LaTeX has by default: \DeclareMathSizes{5}{5}{5}{5} \DeclareMathSizes{6}{6}{5}{5} \DeclareMathSizes{7}{7}{5}{5} \DeclareMathSizes{8}{8}{6}{5} \DeclareMathSizes{9}{9}{6}{5} \DeclareMathSizes{\@xpt}{\@xpt}{7}{5} \DeclareMathSizes{\@xipt}{\@xipt}{8}{6} \DeclareMathSizes{\@xiipt}{\@xiipt}{8}{6} ... 11 The text asterisk is raised, while the math asterisk is used for denoting an operation. You can use \mbox{*} or \text{*} (if you load amsmath). However, in general$Q^{*}$is preferred. You can get the behavior automatically: \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} %%% magic code starts \mathcode*=\string"8000 \begingroup \catcode*=\active ... 11 I'd always use a math italic i. But conventions vary Many engineering disciplines use j rather than i. Unicode has a specific slot U+2148 (ⅈ) which is a double struck italic i. This is the &ImaginaryI; (ⅈ) entity in MathML and HTML5. (The convention started with Mathematica, I can't say I like it much, but it's there if you want an ... 11 If you want the \Gamma at the same height as 0 in the exponent, but not next to 0, then use$\tilde{C}^0_{\text{har}}{}^\Gamma\$ The {} creates a new base for super-/subscripts that is separate from the first. If you want to place the \Gamma next to 0, then you have to combine the superscript (say) in the following way ...

11

In mathmode, ' acts like ^\prime. So you have two superscripts, which isn't allowed. One way around this is to group the T' like so: ${T'}_{\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}\ldots\alpha_{n}}^{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\ldots\mu_{m}}$ But this doesn't look good. I'd suggest maybe replacing T' with some other variable name… As Khaled has pointed out, this solution breaks the ...

10

You can insert \prime symbol as part of the superscript ^{...}, rather than having "two superscripts": \documentclass{article} \begin{document} $T_{\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}\ldots\alpha_{n}}^{\prime\mu_{1}\mu_{2}\ldots\mu_{m}}$ \end{document}

10

(The purpose of this answer is to summarize the different aspects in the existing answers and to expand on egreg's explanation.) You've encountered some really curious aspect of the TeX engine here! My short answer: follow Mico's and Boris' advice and use parentheses around \tilde{C}^{0}_{\text{har}}; this is the way to go. As egreg said in his answer, ...

10

I don't really know why the result is bad; I suspect it has to do with the width of the letter. I wouldn't use such a notation, but that's a personal opinion. With \vec{o}^{\,t} the superscript is moved a bit to the right. One might perhaps let TeX do some computations in order that the shift to the right of the superscript is automatic.

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible