# Missing error for align* \begin{align*} P_n(x+1) &=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \frac{1}{2^2 n!}~\frac{d^n}{d\epsilon^n}[\epsilon^n(2+\epsilon)^n]\\ &=\lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{1}{2^2 n!}~\frac{d^n}{d\epsilon^n} [ 2^n\epsilon^n +\underbrace{\text{higher order terms in \epsilon}}_{0(\epsilon^{n+1})} ]\\ &=\lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \frac{1}{2^2 n!}~2n~\frac{d^n\epsilon^n}{d\epsilon^n} + \underbrace{\frac{d^n 0}{d\epsilon^n}(\epsilon^{n+1})...}_{\text{vanishes as} \epsilon \to 0} \end{align*}  I keep getting: ! Missing  inserted.  l.166 \end{align*} I don't know where to put . I thought I didn't need one because align* is already in math mode? I had a similar block earlier in the document where I put:

\begin{align*}
\frac{d^{2n}}{dx^{2n}} (x^2-1)^n &= \frac{d^{2n}}{dx^{2n}}(x^{2n}+\text{lower order terms which vanish under 2n differentiation})\\
&=(2n)! + 0\\
\therefore\int_{-1}^1 P_n(x)P_n(x)dx &= \frac{(2n)!(-1)^n}{(2^n n!)^2}\int_{-1}^1 (1-x^2)^n dx
\end{align*}


and it came out fine.

The \epsilon in the underbrace needs to be in math mode:

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{amsmath}

\newcommand*\differential{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}
\newcommand*\diff[3][]{\frac{\differential^{#1} #2}{\differential #3}}

\begin{document}

\begin{align*}
P_{n}(x + 1)
&= \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{1}{2^{2}n!}\diff[n]{}{\epsilon^{n}}{[\epsilon^{n}(2 + \epsilon)^{n}]}\\
&= \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{1}{2^{2}n!}\diff[n]{}{\epsilon^{n}}{[2^{n}\epsilon^{n} + \underbrace{\text{higher order terms in $\epsilon$}}_{o(\epsilon^{n + 1})}]}\\
&= \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{1}{2^{2}n!}2n\diff[n]{\epsilon^{n}}{\epsilon^{n}} + \underbrace{\diff[n]{o(\epsilon^{n + 1})}{\epsilon^{n}}}_{\substack{\text{vanishes as}\\ \epsilon \to 0}}
\end{align*}

\end{document}


Notice the code improvements. (Some of them do to Mico's comment below.)

• Oh wow. O.O Wait how come it tells me that the error is at the last line but not where it actually occurs? – Dr. A Dec 23 '13 at 3:48
• @user42999 It just means that it is somewhere in the align* environment. – Svend Tveskæg Dec 23 '13 at 3:50
• I would write o ("little oh") rather than 0 to denote a "term of smaller (asymptotic) order". In the final line, you may also want to place the term (\epsilon^{n+1}) in the "numerator" of the derivative expression since it belongs logically to o (or 0). Finally, the \dots may not be necessary. – Mico Dec 23 '13 at 7:35