2

I have a long equation, which I am trying to fit in a column. I use a big wedge and I am trying to fit it in multiple lines. When I go for a new line, the alignment is not proper. You can see the small wedge in between two big wedges on the next line. Ideally how I would like is to fit like this -

                    line 1
 bigwedge bigwedge    ^
                    line 2

I tried with align environment, but it doesn't give me the required alignment. The code showing the equation is -

\documentclass[11pt,twocolumn]{article}

\usepackage{blindtext}
\usepackage{amsmath}

\begin{document}
\begin{gather*}
  \bigwedge_{\substack{\hat{e}=(v,v') \\ \in E_{\Delta Z}^M}} \bigwedge_{0 \le h < c(v)}
   s({I_{wr}}_{\,h}(\hat{e}))  + I = s({G_{wr}}_{\,h}(\hat{e}))) %\\ 
       \wedge~ \mu({I_{wr}}_{\,h}(\hat{e}))) = \mu({G_{wr}}_{\,h}(\hat{e}))) \\
       \bigwedge_{\hat{e}=(v,v') \in E_{\Delta Z}^M} ~~ \bigwedge_{0 \le h' < c(v')}
   s({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e}))  + I = s({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e}))) \\
        \wedge~ \mu({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e}))) = \mu({G_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e}))) 
\end{gather*}
\Blindtext
\end{document}

something close -

\begin{spreadlines}{-0.5em}% tweak
\begin{align*}
   & s({I_{wr}}_{\,h}(\hat{e}))  + I = s({G_{wr}}_{\,h}(\hat{e}))) \\
  \bigwedge_{\substack{\hat{e}=(v,v') \\ \in E_{\Delta Z}^M}} \bigwedge_{0 \le h < c(v)} & \phantom{invisible text} \wedge \\ 
  & \mu({I_{wr}}_{\,h}(\hat{e}))) = \mu({G_{wr}}_{\,h}(\hat{e}))) \\
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
       \bigwedge_{\hat{e}=(v,v') \in E_{\Delta Z}^M} ~~ \bigwedge_{0 \le h' < c(v')}
   s({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e}))  + I = s({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e}))) \\
        \wedge~ \mu({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e}))) = \mu({G_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e}))) 
\end{align*}
\end{spreadlines}

By the way I am using IEEE two-column format.

Thank you !

  • You want a nested gathered environment for the "line 1 ^ line 2" bit. – Thruston Jun 26 '14 at 10:39
  • but you might also find it easier to move the definition of the limits outside into the text... – Thruston Jun 26 '14 at 10:39
3

Here's an attempt using gathered and moving the information about the limits to the text.

\documentclass[11pt,twocolumn]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\begin{gather*}
       \bigwedge_{\hat{e}}
       \,
       \bigwedge_{h'}
       \;
       \begin{gathered} 
        s({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e}))  + I = s({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e}))) \\
         {}\wedge{}\\
         \mu({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e})))   = \mu({G_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e})))\\
         \end{gathered}
\end{gather*}
where $\hat{e}=(v,v')\in E^M_{\Delta Z}$ and $0\le h'< c(v')$.
\end{document}

enter image description here

If you want to align the equals signs and the little wedge you can use an aligned environment instead of the gathered, but since the expressions are not very symmetrical the result might look a bit lop-sided. I've also shown a slightly tigher spacing here, and corrected the extra trailing )s from the original. enter image description here

\documentclass[11pt,twocolumn]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\begin{gather*}
       \bigwedge_{\hat{e}}
       \,
       \bigwedge_{h'}
       \;
       \begin{aligned} 
           s({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e}))  + I &= s({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e}))) \\[-2pt]
                                            &\mkern2mu\wedge{}\\[-6pt]
           \mu({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e})))   &= \mu({G_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e})))\\
         \end{aligned}
\end{gather*}
where $\hat{e}=(v,v')\in E^M_{\Delta Z}$ and $0\le h'< c(v')$.
\end{document}
  • You can align the two subscripts by using \bigwedge_{\vphantom{h'}\hat{e}} in the first one. – egreg Jun 26 '14 at 10:44
  • is it possible to reduce the space between the three lines? maybe by using spreadlines? – knowledge_seeker Jun 26 '14 at 10:50
  • you can put some negative skip at the line ends of the gathered. eg \\[-3pt] – Thruston Jun 26 '14 at 10:54
  • or you could rewrite it using a primitive halign and fiddle with the interlineskip. – Thruston Jun 26 '14 at 10:55
  • @egreg the misalignment of the subscripts appears to have been an artefact of my converting to png at 120 pixels. The new png has a higher resolution and the subscripts look aligned properly without any vphantoms. – Thruston Jun 26 '14 at 10:58
1

I propose my improvements to the previous solution. It uses empheq in place of amsmath with the overload options. I manage to have (small) \ wedge aligned with the = signs, rd and h' subscripts aligned (no idea why these were different subscripts) and a reduced space between lines:

\documentclass[11pt,twocolumn]{article}
\usepackage[overload]{empheq}

\begin{document}

    \begin{gather*}[left =\displaystyle\bigwedge_{\hat{e}}\, \bigwedge_{h'}\enspace ]%
        \begin{aligned}
                s({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e})) + I & = s({I_{rd}}_{\,h'}(\hat{e})) \\[-4pt]
                   & {\ \wedge}\\[-4pt]
         \mu(I_{rd\:h'}(\hat{e}))
        & = \mu(G_{rd\:h'}(\hat{e}))
        \end{aligned}
    \end{gather*}
where $\hat{e}=(v,v')\in E^M_{\Delta Z}$ and $0\le h'< c(v')$.

\end{document} 

enter image description here

  • Have you left the first set of subscripts unaligned to show the difference? I ignored that bit of the OP post. I thought it was irrelevant to the question. – Thruston Jun 26 '14 at 19:31
  • @Thruston: No it's an error. Thank you for pointing it, I'll change that in a minute. You're right, it's irrelevant to the question, but I often improve details like that. LaTeX taught me to have high standards for typography;). – Bernard Jun 26 '14 at 19:53

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.