# How to write matrices with dimensions in latex?

I am just starting to use latex, and with all the internet help i figured out how to do many things myself, but now i am stuck. How can I write what you all can see in the picture?

Thanks for the help!!!

• Welcome to TeX.SX! Please help us to help you and add a minimal working example (MWE) that illustrates your problem. It will be much easier for us to reproduce your situation and find out what the issue is when we see compilable code, starting with \documentclass{...} and ending with \end{document}. – user31729 Jun 3 '15 at 16:04
• – Werner Jun 3 '15 at 16:14

At its simplest, this might be the easiest way.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
$$\underset{n\times 1}{\mathrm{Y}} = \underset{n\times p}{X} \times \underset{p\times 1}{\theta} + \underset{n\times 1}{\varepsilon}$$
\end{document}


As egreg points out, putting the matrix dimensions in \scriptscriptstyle may give a better appearance. That can be added to each underset of the above solution (or, as he notes, by creating a helper macro), or one could try this alternate stackengine approach, which gives added control over the depth of the underset.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{stackengine}
\stackMath
\begin{document}
$$\def\sss{\scriptscriptstyle} \setstackgap{L}{8pt} \def\stacktype{L} \stackunder{\mathrm{Y}}{\sss n\times 1} = \stackunder{X}{\sss n\times p} \times \stackunder{\theta}{\sss p\times 1} + \stackunder{\varepsilon}{\sss n\times 1}$$
\end{document}


If one wants a more visual interpretation of this result, I would note this related question, Matrix decomposition dimensions diagram

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{stackengine}
\stackMath
\newlength\matfield
\newlength\tmplength
\def\matscale{1.}
\newcommand\dimbox[3]{%
\setlength\matfield{\matscale\baselineskip}%
\setbox0=\hbox{\vphantom{X}\smash{#3}}%
\setlength{\tmplength}{#1\matfield-\ht0-\dp0}%
\fboxrule=1pt\fboxsep=-\fboxrule\relax%
}
\newcommand\raiserows[2]{%
\setlength\matfield{\matscale\baselineskip}%
\raisebox{#1\matfield}{#2}%
}
\newcommand\matbox[5]{
\stackunder{\dimbox{#1}{#2}{$#5$}}{\scriptstyle(#3\times #4)}%
}
\parskip 1em
\begin{document}
$\renewcommand\matscale{.6} \matbox{7}{2}{n}{1}{\mathrm{Y}} = \matbox{7}{4}{n}{p}{X} \raiserows{1.5}{\matbox{4}{2}{p}{1}{\theta}} + \matbox{7}{2}{n}{1}{\varepsilon}$
\end{document}


• No stackengine solution? ;-) – user31729 Jun 3 '15 at 16:08
• @ChristianHupfer Damned if I do...damned if I don't :^) I might add it as an alternative. – Steven B. Segletes Jun 3 '15 at 16:10
• It was my first idea, but you're definitely quicker than me, so go ahead ;-) – user31729 Jun 3 '15 at 16:10
• Possibly \underset{\scriptscriptstyle n\times p}{X} gives less prominence to the dimensions. – egreg Jun 3 '15 at 16:12
• \newcommand{\matrixdim}[2]{\underset{\scriptscriptstyle#2}{#1}} and \matrixdim{X}{n\times 1} is easy (and preferable anyway, even if we don't add the style selection). – egreg Jun 3 '15 at 16:15

I add my little answer in the form of a tabular (much more dirty than the math ones, but may be useful if a lot of complexity is added to the expression)

\documentclass{article}

\begin{document}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
Y & $=$ & $X$ & $\times$ & $\theta$ & $+$ & $\epsilon$ \\
$n\times 1$ & & $n\times p$ & & $p\times 1$ & & $n\times 1$
\end{tabular}
\end{document}


• This is a workable solution, thanks for contributing :-) I'll note to you and others though that if you're a stickler for typography, the spacing is waaay off for mathematics. By the way, you might be able to use a matrix or array environment to avoid going in and out of math mode all the time :-) – Sean Allred Jun 3 '15 at 20:27