1

Is there any way to fix the value of the vertical space before and after {\Large ...} to be 1.0em? Sometimes I use {\Large ...} just after or before a theorem and the theorem spacing requirements seem to have priority. The same thing possibly happens if I use {\Large ...} after or before a math equation. E.g.

\documentclass[12pt]{report}
\usepackage{parskip, enumerate, xcolor, amsmath, amssymb, amsthm}

\newtheoremstyle{mydef}
  {1.0em}   % ABOVESPACE
  {1.0em}   % BELOWSPACE
  {\normalfont} % BODYFONT
  {0pt} % INDENT (empty value is the same as 0pt)
  {\bfseries}   % HEADFONT
  {.}   % HEADPUNCT
  {5pt plus 1pt minus 1pt}  % HEADSPACE
  {}    % CUSTOM-HEAD-SPEC

\theoremstyle{mydef}
\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}

\newcommand{\Largebf}[1]{\textbf{{\Large #1 }}}

\begin{document}
    \Largebf{Introduction}

    \begin{thm}
        Let $I \subset \mathbb{R}$ be an interval (bounded or not) and let $(f_n) : I \to \mathbb{R}$ be a sequence of $C^1$ functions. Suppose
        \begin{enumerate}[i)]
          \item $f_n \to f$ simply on $I$;
          \item $f_n' \to g$ uniformly on $I$.
        \end{enumerate}
        Then $f$ is differentiable on $I$ and $f' = g$. Put differently, under these hypotheses,
        \[
            (\lim_{n \to \infty} f_n)' = \lim_{n \to \infty} f_n'.
        \]
    \end{thm}

    \Largebf{Wonderful result}

    \textcolor{red}{Write this.}

    \Largebf{Not-so-wonderful result}

    The following theorem should not be surprising :
    \[
        1 \neq 19.
    \]

    \Largebf{Conclusion}

    This would be the conclusion!
\end{document}

So my question is: How to fix the value of the vertical space before and after {\Large ...} (or \Largebf{...} as in the code above) to be, say, 1.0em, no matter what (I want to give this condition the first priority).

  • As an aside, your use of \Large should be {\Large ...} and not \Large{...}. – Werner Jul 30 '14 at 4:53
  • @Werner Indeed. I edited my question to take this into account. – Amateur Jul 30 '14 at 4:56
  • My suggestion would be to use \newcommand{\Largebf}[1]{\section*{#1}} rather than your current definition. – Werner Jul 30 '14 at 5:24
  • @Werner I prefer using \subsection* and it's perfect like that. Thank you. – Amateur Jul 30 '14 at 5:37
2

My suggestion would be to use some sectioning command rather than your font-change macro. Perhaps

\newcommand{\Largebf}{\subsection*}

or the like.

Why doesn't \textbf{\Large ...} provide the desired spacing? That's because font switching macros doesn't take the \baselineskip into account unless a \paragraph is set (or a proper \strut is inserted). The easiest way around this is the above suggestion, which covers a lot of ground in terms of document structure.

  • In that case I don't even need to define a new command. – Amateur Jul 30 '14 at 6:00

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.