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).

4
  • As an aside, your use of \Large should be {\Large ...} and not \Large{...}.
    – Werner
    Jul 30, 2014 at 4:53
  • @Werner Indeed. I edited my question to take this into account.
    – Amateur
    Jul 30, 2014 at 4:56
  • My suggestion would be to use \newcommand{\Largebf}[1]{\section*{#1}} rather than your current definition.
    – Werner
    Jul 30, 2014 at 5:24
  • @Werner I prefer using \subsection* and it's perfect like that. Thank you.
    – Amateur
    Jul 30, 2014 at 5:37

1 Answer 1

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.

1
  • In that case I don't even need to define a new command.
    – Amateur
    Jul 30, 2014 at 6:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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