7

I'm writing a paper and I have inserted a piecewise function into my tex-code. My problem is that the piecewise function is very tightly packed. How could I stretch the bracket and get more space between the formulas? See code and result below:

$$
\displaystyle{
P(Y_i = j) = \left\{
        \begin{array}{ll}
            \frac{1}{1+\sum_{k=1}^{K-1}e^{\beta_k\cdot x_i}} & \quad k=K \\
            \frac{e^{\beta_j\cdot x_i}}{1+\sum_{k=1}^{K-1}e^{\beta_k\cdot x_i}} & \quad 1 \leq k \leq K-1
        \end{array}
    \right.,
    }
$$

enter image description here

2

3 Answers 3

8

Don't use $$ for display math.

\displaystyle is not needed.

Option -1:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}

\[
P(Y_i = j) = \left\{
        \begin{array}{ll}
            \frac{1}{1+\sum_{k=1}^{K-1}e^{\beta_k\cdot x_i}} & \quad k=K \\[1em]
            \frac{e^{\beta_j\cdot x_i}}{1+\sum_{k=1}^{K-1}e^{\beta_k\cdot x_i}} & \quad 1 \leq k \leq K-1
        \end{array}
    \right.,
\]
\end{document}

enter image description here

Option - 2

You can use cases.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}

\[
P(Y_i = j) = \begin{cases}
            \frac{1}{1+\sum_{k=1}^{K-1}e^{\beta_k\cdot x_i}} & \quad k=K \\[1em]   %%% <--- here
            \frac{e^{\beta_j\cdot x_i}}{1+\sum_{k=1}^{K-1}e^{\beta_k\cdot x_i}} & \quad 1 \leq k \leq K-1
        \end{cases}
\]
\end{document}

In either case, you can use \\[<dimen>] to change the vertical separation.

Beautification

To make your sums to look less cramped, you can use \limits as in

\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K-1}

Code:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}

\[
P(Y_i = j) = \begin{cases}
            \frac{1}{1+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K-1}e^{\beta_k\cdot x_i}} & \quad k=K \\[2em]
            \frac{e^{\beta_j\cdot x_i}}{1+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K-1}e^{\beta_k\cdot x_i}} & \quad 1 \leq k \leq K-1
        \end{cases}
\]
\end{document}

enter image description here

5
  • ehm cases ehm
    – yo'
    Dec 11, 2013 at 13:16
  • 1
    if you are loading amsmath anyway you could use the cases environment which is specifically for this use. Dec 11, 2013 at 13:16
  • @tohecz I didn't finish yet. Options are on way :-)
    – user11232
    Dec 11, 2013 at 13:17
  • @HarishKumar However, by that time, the OP will very likely leave, using quite not as good solution as he could.
    – yo'
    Dec 11, 2013 at 13:17
  • @tohecz I am slow ;-). Now I am finished. :-)
    – user11232
    Dec 11, 2013 at 13:23
4

The dcases environment by »mathtools« from the »mh« bundle seems to be quite handy here.

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{mathtools}  % loads »amsmath«

\begin{document}
  \[
    P(Y_i=j)=
    \begin{dcases}
      \frac{1}{1+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K-1}e^{\beta_k\cdot x_i}} & \quad k=K \\
      \frac{e^{\beta_j\cdot x_i}}{1+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K-1}e^{\beta_k\cdot x_i}} & \quad 1 \leq k \leq K-1
    \end{dcases}
  \]
\end{document}

enter image description here

0
4

I had no idea that amsmath had such a useful redefinition, so that should be the correct answer (after use of cases). However, for completeness (or if you want more space) you have a few options:

  • reformulate your terms to allow for more vertical leg-room
  • modify \arraystretch to a desired scale (but will cause potentially awkward space on top)
  • use a strut, as in the example below:

    \documentclass{article}
    \usepackage{array}
    
    %\renewcommand\arraystretch{4}
    
    \begin{document}
    \[
    P(Y_i = j) = \left\{
      \begin{array}{>{\displaystyle}ll}
        \biggl(1+\sum_{k=1}^{K-1}e^{\beta_k\cdot x_i}\biggr)^{-1}
        & \quad k=K \\
        \biggl(1+\sum_{k=1}^{K-1}e^{\beta_k\cdot x_i}\biggr)^{-1}
        e^{\beta_j\cdot x_i}
        & \quad 1 \leq k \leq K-1
    
        \rule{0pt}{8ex} % called a 'strut' -- a vertical rule of nil width
      \end{array}
      \right.,
    \]
    \end{document}
    

    output

2
  • 1
    No, this is wrong. The parentheses are too large. Try \biggl(...\biggr) instead of \left(...\right), please. After all, why \displaystyle when `\textstyle would fit there much better? Anyways, +1 for getting rid of the fractions.
    – yo'
    Dec 11, 2013 at 13:25
  • 1
    @tohecz Ah, yes - \left and \right don't take the limits into account very well... And personally, while I haven't much of a leg to stand on as for conventions, if you're going to have a large cases like this, it should be \displayed, not so cramped as in \textstyle. Just personal preference probably prejudiced by handwritten math :) Dec 11, 2013 at 13:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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