I'm very new to LaTeX, and have never been very good with computers, so apologies for not knowing how to post questions on here properly or missing out anything important.

I have this:

\[F_f=\{z\in \mathbb{\hat{C}}:(\vert f^n(z) \vert) is bounded\}\]

"is bounded" comes out in italics and I'd like it to look like normal text (as in text not in $$ or \[\] signs. Any help would be appreciated.

And I realize that I've got lots of \ signs missing, they don't seem to show up.

  • 2
    Use: \text{ is bounded}. Mar 23 '14 at 16:56
  • Use \text{ is bounded} and be happy.
    – Sigur
    Mar 23 '14 at 16:56
  • 3
    Better yet, \{z\in\hat{\mathbb{C}}:\text{$(\lvert f^n(z)\rvert)$ is bounded}\}
    – egreg
    Mar 23 '14 at 16:58
  • @egreg You should make that an answer. Jan 18 '15 at 13:48

I'm not fond of long set descriptions like this, so I'll show also how I'd describe the set.

The trick is to temporarily go in text mode. However the input

(\lvert f^n(z) \rvert) \text{ is bounded}\}

is awkward and I find it much better to use \text for the whole description, getting back in math mode inside it.


F_{f}=\{z\in \hat{\mathbb{C}}:
  \text{$(\lvert f^n(z) \rvert)$ is bounded}\}
and prove something about this.

We define $F_{f}$ as the set of $z\in\hat{\mathbb{C}}$ such that the 
sequence $(\lvert f^n(z) \rvert)$ is bounded.

Note that the correct syntax is \hat{\mathbb{C}} and it would be meaningful to have something like


so we can write z\in\hnC and don't bother with formatting instructions in the document body.

Note also that \lvert...\rvert is the correct usage when amsmath is loaded.

enter image description here

  • 1
    Now that you are at it, I think it would also be great \DeclarePairedDelimiter\set{\lbrace}{\rbrace} and \DeclarePairedDelimiter\abs{\lvert}{\rvert} and use them appropriately.
    – Manuel
    Jan 18 '15 at 14:10
  • @Manuel I don't agree about \set; for \abs it could be. However it's outside the scope of the question.
    – egreg
    Jan 18 '15 at 14:19
  • @egreg Is there a particular reason for writing, say, \[\text{$f$ is}\] instead of \[f\text{ is}\]? (Personally I like your way of doing is, so I'm just curious.) Jan 18 '15 at 15:07
  • 1
    @SvendTveskæg I find it awkward to have f\text{ is...}: \text{$f$ is...} is clearer and there's no risk of forgetting spaces. The clause is the complete $f$ is....
    – egreg
    Jan 18 '15 at 15:09
  • 1
    @SvendTveskæg Under normal settings, no.
    – egreg
    Jan 18 '15 at 15:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.