16

I want to write a math equation that needs power of dots. I tried these code

{2^{2^{2^{\ddots^{2}}}}}

But the dots needs to be rotated

2
  • @user5376: you could perhaps use egreg's answer to a question about a rotated integral sign tex.stackexchange.com/questions/17416/…
    – user4686
    May 7, 2011 at 11:01
  • @user5376: oh, sorry, I thought your dots were already with about the correct angle, as with \iddots from mathdots. Could prove easier indeed to rotate slightly \iddots than a lot \ddots, and perhaps actually \iddots already quasi solves your problem.
    – user4686
    May 7, 2011 at 11:28

3 Answers 3

17

Adapted from The TeXbook, Exercise 18.45:

\def\rddots#1{\cdot^{\cdot^{\cdot^{#1}}}}
$ 2^{2^{\rddots2}} $
\bye

enter image description here

4
  • (+1) Again, I feel like it provides a better alignment than \iddots!
    – chl
    May 7, 2011 at 18:46
  • 1
    When used like this, on math.stackexchange.com each subsequent dot is smaller... Jan 26, 2014 at 0:40
  • @Tomáš: That's because MSE uses [mathjax], which is a bit different thing from TeX and I am not very familiar with it. There is a glyph with [unicode-math], \adots for U+022F0, but I don't think it's available with mathjax (nor if it's the appropriate glyph for this). If mathjax understands different math styles, you could try the more explicit definition: \def\rddots#1{{\scriptstyle\cdot}^{{\scriptstyle\cdot}^{{\scriptstyle\cdot}^{#1}}}}
    – morbusg
    Jan 26, 2014 at 9:06
  • @TomášZato: Or, with Unicode, something like: \def\sadots{{\scriptstyle\char"22F0\relax}} (note that there is no family or class definitions, so for use just in this context).
    – morbusg
    Jan 26, 2014 at 9:12
10

An easy way would be to replace \ddots by \udots from the MnSymbol package, or \iddots from mathdots (better rendering in math mode).

enter image description here

3
  • I could not define the MnSymbol package, when I define it the program does not compile the file
    – user5376
    May 7, 2011 at 8:09
  • @user5376 Add \usepackage{MnSymbol} in your preamble. Still, I'd recommend using \iddots instead.
    – chl
    May 7, 2011 at 8:11
  • In TexLive you find the package mathdots in the package texlive-generic-extra May 18, 2020 at 12:31
7

you could try (with 5 dots for the fun of it!):

\[
  {2^{2^{2^{\mathstrut^{.^{.^{.^{.^{.^{\raisebox{-.5\height}{$\scriptscriptstyle
                        2$}}}}}}}}}}}
\]

\[
  {2^{2^{2^{\mathstrut^{.^{.^{.^{.^{.^{\raisebox{-.25\height}{$\scriptscriptstyle
                        2$}}}}}}}}}}}
\]

or the simpler

\[
  {2^{2^{2^{\mathstrut^{.^{.^{.^{\raisebox{-.25\height}{$\scriptscriptstyle
                        2$}}}}}}}}}
\]

\[ 
  {2^{2^{2^{\mathstrut^{.^{.^{.^{2}}}}}}}}
\]

they give (respectively):

iterated powers of two

2
  • @jbfu (+1) Your 2nd solution seems to provide a better alignment.
    – chl
    May 7, 2011 at 12:30
  • @chl yes, I agree. The \mathstrut is to put the first dot higher than where it would fall otherwise. One could fine-tune that positioning if needed.
    – user4686
    May 7, 2011 at 12:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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