6

I wish to write something like this in latex:

enter image description here

I tried using \lrtimes and also \bowtie, but none is able to give me the correct output. Also, i had problems getting that {task1} below the symbol. For this, i tried using $\bowtie_\{task_1\}$, but it didnt give me the required output. Any help would be appreciated.

Improve this question
5
  • The problem is that the two triangles should surmount each other?
    – egreg
    Dec 1, 2012 at 16:26
  • 1
    May be this works \underset{\{task 1\}}{\vartriangleright\hspace{-1.7mm}\vartriangleleft}
    – Manuel
    Dec 1, 2012 at 16:30
  • Yes, the lrtimes should do that job. But it is not doing the way it is described in specifications.
    – Shafi
    Dec 1, 2012 at 16:30
  • @Manuel: That worked like a charm! Thanks a lot!
    – Shafi
    Dec 1, 2012 at 16:33
  • Read the answer of @percusse, it's much better.
    – Manuel
    Dec 1, 2012 at 16:33

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
5

Here is a possibility:

enter image description here

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}% http://ctan.org/pkg/amsmath
\newcommand{\newbowtie}{\mathrel{\ooalign{$\triangleright$\,\cr\,$\triangleleft$}}}
\begin{document}
\[
  (\text{Resource}_0 \mathbin{||} \text{Resource}_0)
  \underset{\{\text{task 1}\}}{\bowtie}
  (\text{Processor}_0 \mathbin{||} \text{Processor}_0)
\]

\[
  (\text{Resource}_0 \mathbin{||} \text{Resource}_0)
  \underset{\{\text{task 1}\}}{\newbowtie}
  (\text{Processor}_0 \mathbin{||} \text{Processor}_0)
\]
\end{document}

The above symbol creation uses \ooalign which overlays elements on top of one another. For a quick course in \ooalign, see \subseteq + \circ as a single symbol (“open subset”).

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    \ooalign here? A sledgehammer indeed. :)
    – egreg
    Dec 1, 2012 at 16:38
  • 1
    What do \ooalign and \cr do?
    – Brandon Kuczenski
    Dec 1, 2012 at 20:11
  • 1
    @BrandonKuczenski: I've added a reference which gives a quick lesson on \ooalign.
    – Werner ♦
    Dec 1, 2012 at 21:54
7

You could try defining a new command

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
\newcommand{\mytie}{\mathrel{\rhd\mspace{-10mu}\lhd}}
\begin{document}

$A \mytie B$

$A \underset{\text{task}}{\mytie} B$

\end{document}

I've changed the definition from what I first posted because when I tried stacking the relation, the arrows didn't match up as desired.

enter image description here

Improve this answer
5
  • The \mbox serves no purpose: just {\rhd\mspace{-10mu}\lhd} (notice the additional braces) will do. But also \mathrel would be good: \newcommand{\mytie}{\mathrel{\rhd\mspace{-10mu}\lhd}} (the argument of \mathrel makes a subformula, so the additional braces are not needed any more).
    – egreg
    Dec 1, 2012 at 16:43
  • @egreg. (For a solution that omits the \mathrel) Why does that work? I tried your suggestion. If I don't use the parentheses the mspace doesn't work as desired. With the parentheses it does. What's happening there?
    – A.Ellett
    Dec 1, 2012 at 16:48
  • 1
    @A.Ellett -- not egreg, but ... \mspace is defined (in amsmath) to take an argument, hence requiring the braces. the tex primitive on which it relies is \mskip, which would need no braces.
    – barbara beeton
    Dec 1, 2012 at 16:56
  • @barbarabeeton I understand why it's \mspace{-10mu}. But what I don't understand is why {\rhd\mspace{-10mu}\lhd} and \rhd\mspace{-10mu}\lhd behave differently. Maybe that's what you were trying to explain to me. But I'm still not getting something.
    – A.Ellett
    Dec 1, 2012 at 16:59
  • 1
    @A.Ellett Without the braces, the nature of \rhd as binary operation shows up: in $a \rhd\mspace{-10mu}\lhd b$ you have the same situation as in $a++b$ (the kerning doesn't influence the automatic spacings), which gives an undesired result. With the braces, you are making a subformula consisting of two binary operations, which become ordinary atoms by rule.
    – egreg
    Dec 1, 2012 at 17:02
6

You can further scale up/down for your taste. But please consider making words not to be typeset with mathstyle. It's unnecessary difficulty for the reader.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}

\newcommand{\mytie}[1]{
\mathop{\vartriangleright\!\!\!\vartriangleleft}\limits_{#1}
}
\begin{document}
\[
(\text{Resource}_0 \| \text{Resource}_0) \mytie{\{\text{\emph{task }}1\} }(\text{Processor}_0 \| \text{Processor}_0 )
\]
\end{document}

enter image description here

Improve this answer
3
  • I'd put the \mathop (necessary for the subscript) inside a \mathrel. Instead of \!\!\! why not a single \mkern-9mu?
    – egreg
    Dec 1, 2012 at 16:40
  • @egreg Because I forgot that again (and again....) :) For the kerning issue, I was just suggestive since it needs scaling up first in my opinion.
    – percusse
    Dec 1, 2012 at 16:56
  • And the \mathop isn't really necessary, for \underset is probably more practical, unless all instances of \mytie need to be subscripted.
    – egreg
    Dec 1, 2012 at 16:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .