How I can reproduce exactly the following text using \begin{proposition} \begin{enumerate} \item \item \end{enumerate} \end{proposition}

\begin{proof} \begin{enumerate} \item \item \end{enumerate} \end{proof}

enter image description here

  • -1: This question shows no research effort.
    – Werner
    Oct 8, 2015 at 3:48

2 Answers 2


You already have an exact reproduction of the text: just do a photocopy.

If you want to imitate that style, here's a possibility. I hope you don't want to exactly reproduce the errors I found, that are described in the proof.








\begin{proposition}[Spectrum: finite-dimensional case]\label{prop-sfdc}
Let $X$ be a finite-dimensional normed space over $\mathcal{K}$,
with $\dim X=n$. Then
\item\label{prop-sfdc-x} Something.
\item\label{prop-sfdc-y} If $\mathcal{K}=\mathbb{C}$ something.
\item\label{prop-sfdc-z} Again.

\ref{prop-sfdc-x}. Bla bla, but note \verb|\not\in| is wrong because it gives 
$\lambda\not\in\sigma(T)$, so \verb|\notin| should be used

\ref{prop-sfdc-y}. Note \verb|$U:X\rightarrow Y$| is wrong,
because it gives $U:X\to Y$, so \verb|\colon| should be used instead
of the colon, giving $U\colon X\to Y$.

\ref{prop-sfdc-z}. This ends the proof.

The QED symbol at a double quad from the last word makes no sense 
whatsoever; either it is nearer to the last word or it is at the
far end of the line.


There is no enumerate in the proof: it's bad style doing that, even if the statement is divided into cases, because it produces long parts of indented text that can confuse readers, rather than helping them.

enter image description here

  • Oh yes, you have patience ;)
    – user11232
    Oct 8, 2015 at 8:18
\renewcommand{\proofname}{\scshape Proof}
  \begin{proposition}[Spectral case]
    Let $X$ be a finite dimensional normed space over $\mathcal{K}$. Then
      \item Blablabla
      \item more bla here
      \item Here comes the proof.
      \item And here more proof.
    Hence it is proved that some times, even if you show no research effort, we provide answers here. But please don't try your luck always

enter image description here

  • There is no enumerate in the proof, as far as I can see. And nosep is not used in the proposition.
    – egreg
    Oct 8, 2015 at 6:52
  • @egreg: I was too lazy to adjust the spacing so used nosep. The OP wanted to use enumerate.
    – user11232
    Oct 8, 2015 at 6:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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