# How to make nested fractions bigger? [duplicate]

I have a nested fraction on the right-hand side of an equation. I use the LaTeX code as follows to produce the equation:

$$\frac{1}{T_{ex}} = \frac{\frac{1}{T_{kin}}+\left(\frac{A_{ul}}{C_{ul}} \frac{T_{cmb}}{T_*}\right)\frac{1}{T_{cmb}}}{1+\frac{A_{ul}}{C_{ul}} \frac{T_{cmb}}{T_*}}.$$


However, the fractions in the denominator and numerator of the main fraction appear too small on a regular A4 page. How can I make them larger while preserving the size of text on the left-hand side.

• Use \cfrac (continued fraction) Oct 22, 2014 at 4:21
• You also can use \mfrac from the nccmath packade (medium-size fractions, ~ 80 % of \displaystyle) for the nested fractions. Sometimes it looks better. Oct 22, 2014 at 9:52

(I swear this must be a duplicate question, but I can't find one.)

Read the comments below for why you might want to use a single \displaystyle instead of my answer below.

Use \cfrac: (Also, use \text{…} for math elements that are interpreted as text, such as \lim_{t\to\infty}C_{\text{Gasoline}=\infty})

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
$$\cfrac{1}{T_{\text{ex}}} = \cfrac{\cfrac{1}{T_{\text{kin}}}+\left(\cfrac{A_{\text{ul}}}{C_{\text{ul}}} \cfrac{T_{\text{cmb}}}{T_*}\right)\cfrac{1}{T_{\text{cmb}}}}{1+\cfrac{A_{\text{ul}}}{C_{\text{ul}}} \cfrac{T_{\text{cmb}}}{T_*}}.$$
\end{document}


• I found an earlier, related posting...
– Mico
Oct 22, 2014 at 5:18
• @Mico can you link it here ? The question may still be duped. Oct 22, 2014 at 12:27
• The earlier posting's title is Fractions with large elements. Personally, I think it's better to provide a \displaystyle declaration at the start of the numerator and denominator material than to employ a multitude of \cfrac directives.
– Mico
Oct 22, 2014 at 13:33
• @Mico Why would you say? I would use \cfrac, not only because it is less typing, but because (to me) it seems much more descriptive of the actual mathematics. Is there a disadvantage to using \cfrac that I'm as-of-yet ignorant of? Oct 22, 2014 at 13:43
• @Mico Also, I didn't realize the question had already been duped -- you sacrifice a bit when you use the mobile app :) Reading the duped-answer makes a lot of sense now. Oct 22, 2014 at 13:44