0
\documentclass{aip-cp}

\usepackage[numbers]{natbib}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{graphicx}

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{define}{Definition}

\begin{document} 

\begin{theorem}  Let $t(G)= \mathrm{something \  dummy} $. Then 
    \begin{enumerate}
    \item $t(P_r)=r$; 
    \item $t(K_m \times P_r)= r+1 \ \mathrm{for} \  m \geq 2$;
    \end{enumerate}
    \end{theorem}
\end{document}

Hi, as above.

How can i make the the numbering and the text "something dummy " and "for" as normal text n non-italic?

Thank you.

6
  • For the first, why don't you just put the closing $ before something dummy? For the second, if you are loading mathtools or amsmath, try \text{for}. Otherwise \mathrm{for} for serif or \mathsf{for} for sans.
    – cfr
    Aug 8, 2015 at 0:04
  • \mathrm{} is really for upright serif which is maths. So \text{} would definitely be better here if you are really typesetting text.
    – cfr
    Aug 8, 2015 at 0:18
  • Hi, \mathrm{for} works well. But what about the numbering? and \text{ } does not work.
    – Sara
    Aug 8, 2015 at 0:18
  • Since we don't even know how the theorem environment is defined, how should we comment on the numbering? If you could provide a complete example (\documentclass... \end{document}), we'd be more help.
    – cfr
    Aug 8, 2015 at 0:21
  • The numbering is consistent with the surrounding text. If you wish to change this, you can use enumitem or issue \rmfamily before the enumerate environment.
    – Werner
    Aug 8, 2015 at 0:22

1 Answer 1

4

With enumitem use this code:

\begin{enumerate}[label=\arabic*,font=\upshape]
\item …
\end{enumerate}

Or even, if you don't want to have to type the optional argument each time, add this to your preamble:

\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\AtBeginEnvironment{theorem}{\setlist[enumerate,1]{label=\arabic*,font=\upshape}}
2
  • Don't you need to say at the beginning of which environment?
    – cfr
    Aug 8, 2015 at 1:07
  • Oops! Thought of it, and found it was enough, probably· Thanks for pointing it. 'Tis corrected now.
    – Bernard
    Aug 8, 2015 at 1:35

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.