6

Consider the following MWE

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\begin{alignat*}{2}
  (b_{t+1}) &:\quad &  \left(\frac{\beta}{1 + \gamma}\right)
  E_{t}\left\{\lambda_{t+1}\left(1 + r_{t+1}^{f}\right)\right\} &= \lambda_{t}\\
  (\lambda_{t}) &:\quad &  w_{t}l_{t}^{s} + r_{t}^{k}k_{t} + (1 +
  r_{t}^{f})b_{t} & = c_{t} + (1 + \gamma)(k_{t+1} + b_{t+1}) - (1 -\delta)k_{t}
  + \phi_{K}\left[\frac{k_{t+1} }{k_{t}} - 1\right]^{2}
\end{alignat*}
\end{document}

which produces:

enter image description here

I would like to split the second equation at -(1-\delta)k_{t} ... so that (this part) starts just below (k_{t+1} + b_{t+1}). How can I achieve that?

4

Create a new line:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\begin{alignat*}{2}
(b_{t+1}) &:\quad &
  \left(\frac{\beta}{1 + \gamma}\right)
  E_{t}\left\{\lambda_{t+1}\left(1 + r_{t+1}^{f}\right)\right\}
  &= \lambda_{t}\\
(\lambda_{t}) &:\quad &
  w_{t}l_{t}^{s} + r_{t}^{k}k_{t} + (1 + r_{t}^{f})b_{t}
  &= c_{t} + (1 + \gamma)(k_{t+1} + b_{t+1}) \\
&&& \qquad{}-(1 -\delta)k_{t} + \phi_{K}\left[\frac{k_{t+1} }{k_{t}} - 1\right]^{2}
\end{alignat*}
\end{document}

enter image description here

If you want the alignment you'd like, add an alignment point:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\begin{alignat*}{3}
(b_{t+1}) &:\quad &
  \left(\frac{\beta}{1 + \gamma}\right)
  E_{t}\left\{\lambda_{t+1}\left(1 + r_{t+1}^{f}\right)\right\}
  &= \lambda_{t}\\
(\lambda_{t}) &:\quad &
  w_{t}l_{t}^{s} + r_{t}^{k}k_{t} + (1 + r_{t}^{f})b_{t}
  &= c_{t} &&+ (1 + \gamma)(k_{t+1} + b_{t+1}) \\
&&&&&-(1 -\delta)k_{t} + \phi_{K}\left[\frac{k_{t+1} }{k_{t}} - 1\right]^{2}
\end{alignat*}
\end{document}

enter image description here

A different possibility might be avoiding the awkward alignment between the equals signs:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}

\begin{document}

\begin{align*}
(b_{t+1}) &:\quad
  \left(\frac{\beta}{1 + \gamma}\right)
  E_{t}\left\{\lambda_{t+1}\left(1 + r_{t+1}^{f}\right)\right\}
  =\lambda_{t}\\
(\lambda_{t}) &:\quad
  w_{t}l_{t}^{s} + r_{t}^{k}k_{t} + (1 + r_{t}^{f})b_{t} \\
  &\quad\qquad= c_{t} + (1 + \gamma)(k_{t+1} + b_{t+1})
  -(1 -\delta)k_{t} + \phi_{K}\left[\frac{k_{t+1} }{k_{t}} - 1\right]^{2}
\end{align*}

\end{document}

enter image description here

This alternative could be useful in case you want to number those equations, because it allows split:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}

\begin{document}

\begin{align}
(b_{t+1}) &:\quad
  \left(\frac{\beta}{1 + \gamma}\right)
  E_{t}\left\{\lambda_{t+1}\left(1 + r_{t+1}^{f}\right)\right\}
  =\lambda_{t}\\
\begin{split}
(\lambda_{t}) &:\quad
  w_{t}l_{t}^{s} + r_{t}^{k}k_{t} + (1 + r_{t}^{f})b_{t} \\
  &\quad\qquad= c_{t} + (1 + \gamma)(k_{t+1} + b_{t+1})
  -(1 -\delta)k_{t} + \phi_{K}\left[\frac{k_{t+1} }{k_{t}} - 1\right]^{2}
\end{split}
\end{align}

\end{document}
5

Updated image with lined up parentheses

Use a double ampersand for the new align column and it works:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\newcommand{\negphantom}[1]{\settowidth{\dimen0}{#1}\hspace*{-\dimen0}}
\begin{alignat*}{3}
  (b_{t+1}) &:\quad &  \left(\frac{\beta}{1 + \gamma}\right)
  E_{t}\left\{\lambda_{t+1}\left(1 + r_{t+1}^{f}\right)\right\} &= \lambda_{t}\,\\
  (\lambda_{t}) &:\quad &  w_{t}l_{t}^{s} + r_{t}^{k}k_{t} + (1 +
  r_{t}^{f})b_{t} & = c_{t} + (1 + \gamma)\negphantom{$-$}&&(k_{t+1} + b_{t+1})\\
& & & &-& (1 -\delta)k_{t}
  + \phi_{K}\left[\frac{k_{t+1} }{k_{t}} - 1\right]^{2}
\end{alignat*}
\end{document}

The issue is that normally, the ampersands alternate alignment like rlrlrl... - but a double ampersand will cause a repetition, in this case ll.

What does a double ampersand (&&) mean in LaTeX?

EDIT: I made a mistake the first time. To make the parentheses line up, move the last double ampersand before the minus sign and use \hspace{1.95cm} to fill in the gap. If someone has a better way of right-aligning the minus sign, I'd love to know. Putting the minus sign between the two ampersands aligns the parentheses, but places a gap of the size of the minus sign between the two factors above. This is one of those times that I wish there was a negative hphantom command.

EDIT 2: I found a negphantom command online (not the first time I've looked, let me tell you). I updated the code, though not the image, since it's only off by a fraction of a millimeter.

3

I'd probably just do this

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\begin{document}
\begin{alignat*}{3}
  (b_{t+1}) &:\quad & \left(\frac{\beta}{1 + \gamma}\right)
  E_{t}\left\{\lambda_{t+1}\left(1 + r_{t+1}^{f}\right)\right\} &=
  \lambda_{t}
  \\
  (\lambda_{t}) &:\quad & w_{t}l_{t}^{s} + r_{t}^{k}k_{t} + (1 +
  r_{t}^{f})b_{t} & = c_{t} + (1 + \gamma)&&(k_{t+1} + b_{t+1})
  \\
  &&&&\mathllap{-}&(1
  -\delta)k_{t} + \phi_{K}\left[\frac{k_{t+1} }{k_{t}} - 1\right]^{2}
\end{alignat*}
\end{document}

enter image description here

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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