3

The following is a minimal example of code that gives me an Argument of \multline* has an extra } error.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}   
\begin{document}
 \begin{tabular}{c}
  \begin{minipage}{200pt} 
   \begin{multline*}
    \begin{pmatrix}
     a 
     &  
    \end{pmatrix}
   \end{multline*}
  \end{minipage}
 \end{tabular}
\end{document}

Removing the tabular environment kills the error, removing the ampersand kills the error, and changing the multline* environment to $$ kills the error. Is this a known limitation of the environments involved? Something related to having things too deeply nested?

1 Answer 1

3

It's not clear why you'd want that level of nesting (eg a p column is rather more natural than a minipage in a c column) but anyway an extra {} gets you back on track:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}   
\begin{document}
 \begin{tabular}{c}
  {\begin{minipage}{200pt} 
   \begin{multline*}
    \begin{pmatrix}
     a 
     &  
    \end{pmatrix}
   \end{multline*}
  \end{minipage}}
 \end{tabular}
\end{document}
2
  • Replacing the c column + minipage with a p column still gives an error: "Forbidden control sequence found while scanning use of \multline*." The workaround with the braces does work, though. Thanks for the tip. Jan 8, 2014 at 0:07
  • 1
    @ChrisGrant yes, it would:-) (but still it seemed worth saying:-) ams could have defined multline so it would nest, just as tabular can nest but probably they just thought it would never be needed (it would complicate the code somewhat). Jan 8, 2014 at 0:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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