70

For mathematics, is it ever disadvantageous to use \left( and \right) in equations?

I can't see any way that doing this would hinder the typesetting, so why isn't () just converted into \left( \right) automatically? This would save a lot of typing.

Cheers!

10

4 Answers 4

69

The automatic sized braces are not always the sizes you would choose manually, but that's a matter of personal taste (and the sizes chosen by the automatic algorithm can be adjusted with the \delimitershortfall and \delimiterfactor parameters).

More immediate problems are that \left( ... \right) differs from ( ... ) even if the standard small delimiter size is chosen.

  • It is a \mathinner atom so it gets additional spacing in many contexts.

  • It is a \mathinner atom so can not be broken across lines in a math display such as align.

  • It is a \mathinner atom so will not allow automatic linebreaking in inline math.

  • It is a \mathinner atom so forms a box set to its natural length and white space around relations or added explicitly will not be allowed to stretch or shrink to help with line breaking.

  • It is a \mathinner atom.

6
  • 6
    Your bullets all say "it", but it's not clear to me whether your pronoun is referencing \left( ... \right( or ( ... ), or something else (singular), since they are plural. Apr 27, 2014 at 15:51
  • 5
    @TravisBemrose the construct \left( stuff \right) makes a single math atom in the same way that \mbox{ stuff} makes a single box. Apr 27, 2014 at 15:56
  • 16
    whoever downvoted this, why?? I can understand vim users downvoting my emacs answers, but I'm a bit bemused by this one. May 11, 2014 at 22:16
  • 1
    Maybe good to note that you can circumvent the points about line breaking with pairing \right. and \left. (i.e. empty delimiters).
    – morbusg
    Jan 27, 2019 at 12:41
  • 6
    @morbusg but then the delimiters aren't the same size which negates most of the point of using left...right Jan 27, 2019 at 16:03
51

You ask:

For [mathematical typography], is it ever disadvantageous to use \left( and \right) in equations?

Excerpting from pp. 148f. of the TeXbook (emphasis added):

At this point you are probably wondering why you should bother learning about \bigl and \bigr and their relatives, when \left and \right are there to calculate sizes for you automatically. Well, it's true that \left and \right are quite handy, but there are at least three situations in which you will want to use your own wisdom when selecting the proper delimiter size: (1) Sometimes \left and \right choose a smaller delimiter size than you want. [...] (2) Sometimes \left and \right choose a larger delimiter than you want. [...] (3) Sometimes you need to break a huge displayed formula into two or more lines, and you want to make sure that its opening and closing delimiters have the same size; but you can't use \left on the first line and \right on the last, since \left and \right must occur in pairs. [...]

To illustrate the first two cases, consider the following two examples. They contrast indiscriminate use of \left and \right with judicious use of \big and \bigg.

  • Here's a case where \left( ... \right) produce parentheses that aren't big enough:

    $\left(\left(a+b\right) \left(c+d\right)\right)$ vs.\ $\bigl((a+b)(c+d)\bigr)$
    

enter image description here

  • And here's a case where \left( ... \right) produce parentheses that are too big from a typographic point of view:

    $\displaystyle\left(\sum_{i=1}^\infty\frac{1}{i^2}\right)^2 \mbox{ vs.\ } 
     \biggl(\,\sum_{i=1}^\infty\frac{1}{i^2}\biggr)^{\!2}$
    

enter image description here

Note that the second expression not only employs \biggl( and \biggr) but also uses a positive thinspace after the opening parenthesis and a negative thinspace to position the exponent 2. Incidentally, the recommendation to use \biggl( and \biggr) in this case instead of \left( and \right) isn't just my personal preference; it's also given on p. 149 of the TeXbook.

  • Even if the size of the parentheses produced by \left( ... \right) happens to be correct, the spacing around the large parentheses may not only be suboptimal from a purely typographic/aesthetic point of view but actually interfere with the normal interpretation of some standard operators. Consider, for instance, the following expression (culled from a recent posting to this site; I won't say which posting as I don't mean to single out any one person in particular):

enter image description here

In the first row, \left and \right are used to size the square brackets. Because \left[ inserts a bit of extra whitespace to its immediate left, the enlarged space after \pm makes it look like it might be a binary operator; the reader may thus be puzzled by how one is supposed to add a \sum symbol and a term in square brackets -- before concluding that \pm is a unary operator and that what the author intended to say is that the sum is taken over the positive and negative values of the term in square brackets... By using \bigl[ (see the look in the second row), such ambiguity doesn't arise to begin with.


There are still further reasons for not using \left and \right indiscriminately. See, e.g., the answer by David Carlisle for reasons related to (i) a lack of intelligent spacing inside a \left...\right pair and (ii) inability to let TeX find a line break within a \left...\right pair that's used in inline math mode.

5
  • 5
    Your ((a+b)(c+d)) is the first example I've seen where \left( ... \right) didn't chose the sizing I'd want it to. Even in the second example, I prefer it over \biggl( ... \bigr) because they leave the i=1 hanging out, making it look like it's not part of the expression, or like it may "fall away". Apr 27, 2014 at 16:09
  • 8
    @TravisBemrose - Good typography is characterized by balance, meaning that no one element dominates the others. Whereas the \left(...\right) approach does ensure that the material is fully enclosed, the resulting very large parentheses tend to dominate the enclosed material. The \biggl(...\biggr) approach tries to strike a balance: both the parentheses and the material they enclose are given roughly equal visual importance. And do ask yourself: what's the risk that a reader might think that "i=1" isn't part of the expression, just because it's not "fully enclosed" by the parentheses?
    – Mico
    Apr 27, 2014 at 17:00
  • 2
    Yes, larger has drawbacks. On your last point, I wasn't trying to imply that it wouldn't be clear or the reader wouldn't understand. I was indicating that the part of my brain that deals with a physical 3D world, distracts the part of my brain that deals with abstract equations. I can read the first faster. Internal conflict or at least multi-tasking slows down my ability to process the second. Not to a snails pace certainly, but "slightly longer" when you're talking about sub-second timing can mean ~1.5 - 3 times longer. Apr 27, 2014 at 17:11
  • This strikes me as damning by faint praise. If the worst thing that could happen is the parentheses are just a millimeter too large on ((a+b)(c+d)), it seems like always using \left and \right is a good heuristic that will rarely, if ever, be a problem. Mar 2 at 4:24
  • @ClosedLimelikeCurves - Not sure I understand your comment. What part of my answer is your inference that "the worst thing that could happen [with an indiscriminate use of \left and \right] is the parentheses are just a millimeter too large" based on?
    – Mico
    Mar 2 at 6:03
35

Here's an example: in the first display, \left and \right are used throughout, while in the second several manual adjustments have been made in order to properly typeset the formulas.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\[
\lim_{t\to\infty}\left(1+\frac{r}{t}\right)^{tn}=
\lim_{t\to\infty}\left(\left(1+\frac{r}{t}\right)^{t}\right)^{n}=
\left(\lim_{t\to\infty}\left(1+\frac{r}{t}\right)^{t}\right)^{n}=
\left(e^{r}\right)^{n}=
e^{rn}
\]
\[
\lim_{t\to\infty}\Bigl(1+\frac{r}{t}\Bigr)^{\!tn}=
\lim_{t\to\infty}\Bigl(\!\Bigl(1+\frac{r}{t}\Bigr)^{\!t\,}\Bigr)^{\!n}=
\Bigl(\,\lim_{t\to\infty}\Bigl(1+\frac{r}{t}\Bigr)^{\!t\,}\Bigr)^{\!n}=(e^r)^n=
e^{rn}
\]
\end{document}

enter image description here

I have no doubt whatsoever that the second version is better: it's more readable and less distracting. Yes, it requires some labor, but let me remind what τέχνη (techne) means:

τέχν-η , ἡ, (τέκτων)
A. art, skill, cunning of hand, esp. in metalworking, Od.3.433, 6.234, 11.614; also of a shipwright, Il.3.61; of a soothsayer, A.Ag.249 (pl., lyr.), Eu.17, S.OT389, etc.; “τέχναι ἑτέρων ἕτεραι” Pi.N.1.25; “ὤπασε τ. πᾶσαν” Id.O.7.50.
2​. craft, cunning, in bad sense, δολίη τ. Od.4.455, Hes.Th.160: pl., arts, wiles, Od.8.327.332, Hes.Th.496,929; “δολίαις τέχναισι χρησάμενος” Pi.N.4.58; τέχναις τινός by his arts (or simply by his agency), Id.O.9.52, P.3.11; τέχνην κακὴν ἔχει he has a bad trick, Hes.Th.770, cf. Pi.I.4(3).35(53), S Ph.88, etc.
3​. way, manner, or means whereby a thing is gained, without any definite sense of art or craft, μηδεμιῇ τ. in no wise, Hdt.1.112; ἰθέῃ τ. straightway, Id.9.57; πάσῃ τ. by all means, Ar.Nu.1323, Th.65, Ec.366; παντοίᾳ τ. S.Aj.752, etc.; “οὐκ ἀποστήσομαι . . οὔτε τ. οὔτε μηχανῇ οὐδεμιᾷ” IG12.39.22; “πάσῃ τ. καὶ μηχανῇ” X.An.4.5.16; “μήτε τ. μήτε μηχανῇ μηδεμιᾷ” Lys.13.95.

[…]

Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

Another example, where the box is artificially spread out in order to emulate a line of type where interword spaces are enlarged for justification:

\documentclass{article}

\begin{document}

Not too much spread:

\makebox[\dimexpr\width+1pc][s]{Text $y-y_0=m\left(x-x_0\right)$ and other text}

\makebox[\dimexpr\width+1pc][s]{Text $y-y_0=m(x-x_0)$ and other text}

\medskip

Larger spread:

\makebox[\dimexpr\width+2pc][s]{Text $y-y_0=m\left(x-x_0\right)$ and other text}

\makebox[\dimexpr\width+2pc][s]{Text $y-y_0=m(x-x_0)$ and other text}

\end{document}

The lines with \left and \right are wider because of the added space around \left and \right; in those lines the spaces around the minus sign in x-x_0 don't stretch, because \left(...\right) makes a subformula with rigid spaces. The effect is more evident in the second pair of lines. Note that the delimiters are not bigger (and they shouldn't be anyway, in this case).

enter image description here

Typography is not just laying down letters, but it's also a craft and, in some cases (not this one, of course), art. As such we can't think that any automated system will be able to avoid human judgment.

TeX allows automation, with a not so bad output; if we want our documents to be good, we have to work on them. A good document is not to be hung on museums' walls, but read by people: the fewer distractions, the easier will be reading it.

5
  • 1
    +1 for "As such we can't think that any automated system will be able to avoid human judgment".
    – user13907
    Apr 27, 2014 at 12:57
  • 5
    I find the 2nd one to be distracting, and much prefer the first. Apr 27, 2014 at 15:58
  • 6
    @TravisBemrose Yes that's interesting... I also prefer the first. I find it helpful when the outer parentheses are larger than the inner ones so that nesting is clear.
    – user50612
    Apr 27, 2014 at 16:00
  • 1
    @TravisBemrose Everybody is entitled their own opinions. :-) Increasing the size of the parentheses places superscripts in almost random positions, while they are conceptually at the same level: $(a^{x})^{y}=a^{xy}$
    – egreg
    Apr 27, 2014 at 16:00
  • 5
    Yes. :-) I take your point that conceptually they are at the same level, but they're not being applied the same. If there's a reason to use parentheses to place them at different levels (as in the example), I find it a mental assist to emphasize the separation of the operations. It also helps me pair-match quickly, when each pair is a different size. And lastly, I find the way the t exponent sticks out of the outer parenthesis unaesthetic. (And the way the inner t hangs out of the bottom of its own parentheses, but that's not worth the effort, so I breathe and move on.) Apr 27, 2014 at 16:18
11

There are many reasons. The simplest one is of an aesthetic nature (edited according to some suggestions from the comments):

\documentclass{article}

\begin{document}

Is:
\[
\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{n^2}\right)^2=\frac{\pi^4}{36}
\]
Should be:
\[
\Bigl(\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{n^2}\Bigr)^2=\frac{\pi^4}{36}
\]
or 
\[
\biggl(\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac1{n^2}\biggr)^2=\frac{\pi^4}{36}
\]
(with some addidional corrections  after the opening parenthesis).

\end{document}

enter image description here

The braces choosen in the first example are too big and should be corrected.

If an equation is splitted into many lines, there are no matching \left or \right.

13
  • 23
    I actually think the first example looks nicer, because it contains the whole summation...
    – user50612
    Apr 27, 2014 at 3:41
  • 3
    @user50612 But one of typographic rules (I am not sure, if in all countries) says, that the braces should be approximately as big as the summation sign (here), but without its limits. Apr 27, 2014 at 3:47
  • 4
    I'd use \biggl and \biggr in that case; with \Bigl the parenthesis is too short (a \, after the opening parenthesis could improve). For the exponent, ^{\!2} is recommended, in order to compensate for the curved shape of the closing parenthesis.
    – egreg
    Apr 27, 2014 at 9:46
  • 3
    @pst - Believe it or not, but not everyone has easy access to a copy of Lansburgh (1961). Is it available online somewhere?
    – Mico
    Apr 27, 2014 at 11:28
  • 4
    @PrzemysławScherwentke But rules are not laws, and they're just made up by someone. I find the first natural and graceful. The second clunky and distracting. Apr 27, 2014 at 16:03

You must log in to answer this question.

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