72

Similar to How do I force a column-break in a multi-column page? I want to force a column-break in a two-column document.

\columnbreak

seems to be undefined without the multicol package.

2 Answers 2

85

use \newpage instead. A twocolumn document is for TeX the same as two half pages side by side

1
  • You may need to precede it with a \\ Otherwise the first line after the \newpage is still on the previous page. (happened to me)
    – Bart
    Jan 19, 2021 at 10:43
48

Just use \newpage. And use \clearpage for a new page.

6
  • 16
    Orwell would be proud. Jun 15, 2018 at 3:43
  • 3
    @AlecJacobson: For the uneducated (but intrigued) among us: Can you elaborate/explain?
    – Make42
    Jul 10, 2020 at 14:48
  • 3
    @CampanIgnis: Now, that I am reading this again: I think that might not be it. Or what would you writing it again have anything to do with Orwell? I think, Alex means that one does not use "newpage" to get a new page, but clearpage to get a new page. This sound very counterintuitive and "clearpage" for a new page is also unexpected: one might think that it removes a page, but you actually get a new page... The reference to Orwell is due to the "new speak" in Orwell's "big brother" (if I recall correctly), which is a "language" which distorts (on purpose) the meaning of words to subdue people.
    – Make42
    Mar 8, 2021 at 8:32
  • 1
    @Make42 I thought of Orwell's book "nineteen eighty-four" and one institution spying on someone which consequently allows to steal ideas. \clearpage (and \cleardoublepage) for a new page are not counterintuitive as it is a well known command which is described in tex.stackexchange.com/a/45619/128553 and elsewhere. Every LaTeX instruction book needs to include this command. But I agree that a new command \clearcolumn or \newcolumn like in would be more intuitive than \newpage here. I did not thought about the newspeak aspect. Btw, Orwell should not be reduced to "nineteen eighty-four". Mar 8, 2021 at 11:24
  • 1
    @CampanIgnis You're right, Orwell should not be reduced to 1984. So, O'Brien would be proud.
    – hlongmore
    Jan 25 at 11:41

You must log in to answer this question.

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