# Rotation in \ddots

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

• @user5376: you could perhaps use egreg's answer to a question about a rotated integral sign tex.stackexchange.com/questions/17416/…
– user4686
Commented 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
Commented May 7, 2011 at 11:28

Adapted from The TeXbook, Exercise 18.45:

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


• (+1) Again, I feel like it provides a better alignment than \iddots!
– chl
Commented May 7, 2011 at 18:46
• When used like this, on math.stackexchange.com each subsequent dot is smaller... Commented 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}}}} Commented 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). Commented Jan 26, 2014 at 9:12

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

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

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):

• @jbfu (+1) Your 2nd solution seems to provide a better alignment.
– chl
Commented 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
Commented May 7, 2011 at 12:55