OK, it has been a rainy Saturday afternoon, but I must be crazy to have wasted more than three hours doing this…
The idea is that, since (La)TeX is a language primarily designed to handle text with math, the lack of a “math-flavored” answer (apart from Guido’s “minimalist contribution”) was a gap that ought to be filled. This answer applies well-known techniques to define a \mathwitch operator, intended for denoting the operation of applying black magic to the ensuing subformula. I’ve made this operator follow the usual conventions (\displaylimits) if used, e.g., with indexed wizardry.
% My standard header for TeX.SX answers:
\documentclass[a4paper]{article} % To avoid confusion, let us explicitly
% declare the paper format.
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % Not necessary, but recommended.
% End of standard header. What follows pertains to the problem at hand.
\usepackage{amsmath}
% Old uncle Gustavo prefers to stick to the "picture" environment:
\usepackage{pict2e}
\usepackage{lipsum}
%--------------------------------------------------------------%
\makeatletter
\newcommand*\@MCl@Large@witch[1]{%
\setlength\unitlength{\fontdimen 22 #1\tw@}%
\vrule \@width\z@ \@height 5\unitlength \@depth\thr@@\unitlength
\begin{picture}(12,2)(-6,-1)%
\linethickness{\p@}%
\Line(-2,-2)(6,2)%
\linethickness{.4\p@}%
\Line(-2,-2)(-5,-2.5)%
\Line(-2,-2)(-4.85,-2.95)%
\Line(-2,-2)(-4.6,-3.3)%
\Line(-2,-2)(-4.35,-3.65)%
\Line(-2,-2)(-4,-4)%
\Line(0,1.8)(-.2,1.4)%
\polyline(.6,3.2)(.8,3)(1.5,3)%
\put(1.6,3){\oval(.2,.2)[tl]}%
\put(1.6,3){\oval(.2,.2)[r]}%
\polyline(1.6,2.9)(1.8,2.4)(1.2,2.4)(1,2.5)(1,2.3)%
(1.2,2)(1.6,1.8)(1.7,1.8)(1.7,1.6)(1.4,1.5)%
(0,1.8)(-.2,2)%
\Line(.2,2.8)(.6,3)%
\polygon*(-1,2)(-2,0)(-2,-1)(-1.5,-2)(1,-2)%
(0,-3.6)(.4,-3.8)(.6,-3.4)(.8,-4)(2,-4)%
(1,-3.6)(1,-3)(1.6,-3.2)(2,-1.5)(0,-1)%
(0,-.6)(1.4,-.6)(1.8,-.4)(2,0)(0,0)%
(0,1.4)%
\polygon*(-3,2)(-2.8,3)(-2,4)(-1.5,4.1)(-1,4)(0,3.5)%
(1,3.8)(2.5,3.5)(3,3.3)(2,3.4)(0,3)(-1,2)(-2,1.6)%
(-2.7,2)(-2,2)(-1,3)(-2,3.5)(-2.6,3)%
\linethickness{.1\p@}%
\Line(1.7,1.6)(2,1.6)%
\Line(1.7,1.6)(1.9,1.4)%
\Line(1.7,1.6)(1.7,1.3)%
\end{picture}%
}
\newcommand*\@MCl@Small@witch[3]{%
\setlength\unitlength{\fontdimen 22 #1\tw@}%
\vrule \@width\z@ \@height \thr@@\unitlength \@depth\@ne\unitlength
\begin{picture}(6,2)(-3,-1)%
\linethickness{#3\p@}%
\Line(-1,-1)(3,1)%
\linethickness{#2\p@}%
\Line(-1,-1)(-2.5,-1.25)%
\Line(-1,-1)(-2.4,-1.5)%
\Line(-1,-1)(-2.25,-1.75)%
\Line(-1,-1)(-2,-2)%
\Line(0,.9)(-.1,.7)%
\polyline(.3,1.6)(.4,1.5)(.75,1.5)(.9,1.2)(.5,1.2)%
(.6,1)(.8,.9)(.7,.75)(0,.9)(-.1,1)%
\Line(.1,1.4)(.3,1.5)%
\polygon*(-.5,1)(-1,0)(-1,-.5)(-.75,-1)(.5,-1)%
(0,-1.8)(.2,-1.9)(.3,-1.7)(.4,-2)(1,-2)%
(.5,-1.8)(.5,-1.5)(.8,-1.6)(1,-.75)(0,-.5)%
(0,-.3)(.7,-.3)(.9,-.2)(1,0)(0,0)%
(0,.7)%
\polygon*(-1.5,1)(-1.4,1.5)(-1,2)(-.5,2)(0,1.75)%
(.5,1.9)(1.25,1.75)(0,1.5)(-.5,1)(-1,.8)%
(-1.2,1)(-1,1)(-.5,1.5)(-1,1.75)(-1.3,1.5)%
\end{picture}%
}
% User-level command:
\newcommand*\mathwitch{%
\mathop{%
\mathchoice{%
\@MCl@Large@witch \textfont
}{%
\@MCl@Small@witch \textfont {.3}{.8}%
}{%
\@MCl@Small@witch \scriptfont {.2}{.5}%
}{%
\@MCl@Small@witch \scriptscriptfont {.1}{.3}%
}%
}% \displaylimits % as per default
}
\makeatother
%--------------------------------------------------------------%
\begin{document}
A reduction my students are likely to make:
\[\mathwitch \frac{\sin x}{s} = x\,\mathrm{in}\]
The same reduction as an in-line formula:
\(\mathwitch \frac{\sin x}{s} = x\,\mathrm{in}\).
Test for ``operator-like'' behavior: $\mathwitch x$ versus
$\mathwitch(x)$---does anybody note the difference?
Let us also check that our $\mathwitch$~symbol does not make the lines further
apart than usual. Here it is again:\nobreak\space $\mathwitch b$.
\lipsum*[2]
Now with limits:
\[
\mathwitch_{i=1}^{n} \frac
{\text{$i$-th magic term}}
{\text{$2^{i}$-th wizardry}}
\]
And repeated in-line: \( \mathwitch_{i=1}^{n} x_{i}y_{i} \).
Test for other math styles: subscript~$F_{\!\mathwitch\alpha}$, in-line
fraction \( \frac{\mathwitch m}{\mathwitch n} \), double superscript \(
2^{2^{\mathwitch\aleph_{0}}} \) (this one looks really awkward!).
\begingroup
\Huge
Look at the details of the display-size version:
\[
\mathwitch
\genfrac{<}{>}{0pt}{}
{\text{something terribly}}{\text{complicated}}
= 0
\]
Please note the beard\ldots~:-)\par
\endgroup
\end{document}
The output of this sample page:
Addition
Wasted more time (only twenty minutes or so, fortunately…) to provide support for the bold math version:
% My standard header for TeX.SX answers:
\documentclass[a4paper]{article} % To avoid confusion, let us explicitly
% declare the paper format.
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % Not necessary, but recommended.
% End of standard header. What follows pertains to the problem at hand.
\usepackage{amsmath}
% Old uncle Gustavo prefers to stick to the "picture" environment:
\usepackage{pict2e}
\usepackage{lipsum}
%--------------------------------------------------------------%
\makeatletter
\newcommand*\@MCl@Large@witch[4]{%
\setlength\unitlength{\fontdimen 22 #1\tw@}%
\vrule \@width\z@ \@height 5\unitlength \@depth\thr@@\unitlength
\begin{picture}(12,2)(-6,-1)%
\linethickness{#3\p@}%
\Line(-2,-2)(6,2)%
\linethickness{#2\p@}%
\Line(-2,-2)(-5,-2.5)%
\Line(-2,-2)(-4.85,-2.95)%
\Line(-2,-2)(-4.6,-3.3)%
\Line(-2,-2)(-4.35,-3.65)%
\Line(-2,-2)(-4,-4)%
\Line(0,1.8)(-.2,1.4)%
\polyline(.6,3.2)(.8,3)(1.5,3)%
\put(1.6,3){\oval(.2,.2)[tl]}%
\put(1.6,3){\oval(.2,.2)[r]}%
\polyline(1.6,2.9)(1.8,2.4)(1.2,2.4)(1,2.5)(1,2.3)%
(1.2,2)(1.6,1.8)(1.7,1.8)(1.7,1.6)(1.4,1.5)%
(0,1.8)(-.2,2)%
\Line(.2,2.8)(.6,3)%
\polygon*(-1,2)(-2,0)(-2,-1)(-1.5,-2)(1,-2)%
(0,-3.6)(.4,-3.8)(.6,-3.4)(.8,-4)(2,-4)%
(1,-3.6)(1,-3)(1.6,-3.2)(2,-1.5)(0,-1)%
(0,-.6)(1.4,-.6)(1.8,-.4)(2,0)(0,0)%
(0,1.4)%
\polygon*(-3,2)(-2.8,3)(-2,4)(-1.5,4.1)(-1,4)(0,3.5)%
(1,3.8)(2.5,3.5)(3,3.3)(2,3.4)(0,3)(-1,2)(-2,1.6)%
(-2.7,2)(-2,2)(-1,3)(-2,3.5)(-2.6,3)%
\linethickness{#4\p@}%
\Line(1.7,1.6)(2,1.6)%
\Line(1.7,1.6)(1.9,1.4)%
\Line(1.7,1.6)(1.7,1.3)%
\end{picture}%
}
\newcommand*\@MCl@Small@witch[3]{%
\setlength\unitlength{\fontdimen 22 #1\tw@}%
\vrule \@width\z@ \@height \thr@@\unitlength \@depth\@ne\unitlength
\begin{picture}(6,2)(-3,-1)%
\linethickness{#3\p@}%
\Line(-1,-1)(3,1)%
\linethickness{#2\p@}%
\Line(-1,-1)(-2.5,-1.25)%
\Line(-1,-1)(-2.4,-1.5)%
\Line(-1,-1)(-2.25,-1.75)%
\Line(-1,-1)(-2,-2)%
\Line(0,.9)(-.1,.7)%
\polyline(.3,1.6)(.4,1.5)(.75,1.5)(.9,1.2)(.5,1.2)%
(.6,1)(.8,.9)(.7,.75)(0,.9)(-.1,1)%
\Line(.1,1.4)(.3,1.5)%
\polygon*(-.5,1)(-1,0)(-1,-.5)(-.75,-1)(.5,-1)%
(0,-1.8)(.2,-1.9)(.3,-1.7)(.4,-2)(1,-2)%
(.5,-1.8)(.5,-1.5)(.8,-1.6)(1,-.75)(0,-.5)%
(0,-.3)(.7,-.3)(.9,-.2)(1,0)(0,0)%
(0,.7)%
\polygon*(-1.5,1)(-1.4,1.5)(-1,2)(-.5,2)(0,1.75)%
(.5,1.9)(1.25,1.75)(0,1.5)(-.5,1)(-1,.8)%
(-1.2,1)(-1,1)(-.5,1.5)(-1,1.75)(-1.3,1.5)%
\end{picture}%
}
% User-level command:
\newcommand*\mathwitch{%
\def\@tempa{bold}%
\mathop{%
\ifx\math@version\@tempa
\mathchoice{%
\@MCl@Large@witch \textfont {.6}{1.2}{.15}%
}{%
\@MCl@Small@witch \textfont {.4}{}%
}{%
\@MCl@Small@witch \scriptfont {.3}{.6}%
}{%
\@MCl@Small@witch \scriptscriptfont {.15}{.4}%
}%
\else
\mathchoice{%
\@MCl@Large@witch \textfont {.3}{.8}{.1}%
}{%
\@MCl@Small@witch \textfont {.2}{.5}%
}{%
\@MCl@Small@witch \scriptfont {.15}{.3}%
}{%
\@MCl@Small@witch \scriptscriptfont {.1}{.2}%
}%
\fi
}% \displaylimits % as per default
}
\makeatother
%--------------------------------------------------------------%
\begin{document}
A reduction my students are likely to make:
\[\mathwitch \frac{\sin x}{s} = x\,\mathrm{in}\]
The same reduction as an in-line formula:
\(\mathwitch \frac{\sin x}{s} = x\,\mathrm{in}\).
Test for ``operator-like'' behavior: $\mathwitch x$ versus
$\mathwitch(x)$---does anybody note the difference?
Let us also check that our $\mathwitch$~symbol does not make the lines further
apart than usual. Here it is again:\nobreak\space $\mathwitch b$.
\lipsum*[2]
Now with limits:
\[
\mathwitch_{i=1}^{n} \frac
{\text{$i$-th magic term}}
{\text{$2^{i}$-th wizardry}}
\]
And repeated in-line: \( \mathwitch_{i=1}^{n} x_{i}y_{i} \).
Test for other math styles: subscript~$F_{\!\mathwitch\alpha}$, in-line
fraction \( \frac{\mathwitch m}{\mathwitch n} \), double superscript \(
2^{2^{\mathwitch\aleph_{0}}} \) (this one looks really awkward!).
\begingroup
\Huge
Look at the details of the display-style version:
\[
\mathwitch
\genfrac{<}{>}{0pt}{}
{\text{something terribly}}{\text{complicated}}
= 0
\]
Please note the beard\ldots~:-)\par
\endgroup
Now we've also got the \texttt{bold} math version:\mathversion{bold}
\[
\mathwitch
\genfrac{<}{>}{0pt}{}
{\textbf{something terribly}}{\textbf{complicated}}
= 0
\]
Compare it with \texttt{normal} math\mathversion{normal}:
\[
\mathwitch
\genfrac{<}{>}{0pt}{}
{\text{something terribly}}{\text{complicated}}
= 0
\]
In-line math comparison: {\boldmath $\mathwitch f(x)$} versus $\mathwitch f(x)$.
\end{document}
Output:
Second Addition
I know it is crazy to insist, but I got bewitched…
Instead of using an operator, you might want to denote the (fundamental!) operation of applying black magic to a formula by means of an extensible math accent, similar to using \overrightarrow. The following code adds an \overrightbroom command for this purpose. Note that is just a stub: its \overleftbroom counterpart is still missing.
% My standard header for TeX.SX answers:
\documentclass[a4paper]{article} % To avoid confusion, let us explicitly
% declare the paper format.
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % Not necessary, but recommended.
% End of standard header. What follows pertains to the problem at hand.
\usepackage{amsmath}
% \usepackage{amsfonts}
% Old uncle Gustavo prefers to stick to the "picture" environment:
\usepackage{pict2e}
%--------------------------------------------------------------%
\makeatletter
% Drawing the larger witch:
\newcommand*\@MWi@Large@witch[4]{%
\setlength\unitlength{\fontdimen 22 #1\tw@}%
\vrule \@width\z@ \@height 5\unitlength \@depth\thr@@\unitlength
\begin{picture}(12,2)(-6,-1)%
\linethickness{#3\p@}%
\Line(-2,-2)(6,2)%
\linethickness{#2\p@}%
\Line(-2,-2)(-5,-2.5)%
\Line(-2,-2)(-4.85,-2.95)%
\Line(-2,-2)(-4.6,-3.3)%
\Line(-2,-2)(-4.35,-3.65)%
\Line(-2,-2)(-4,-4)%
\Line(0,1.8)(-.2,1.4)%
\polyline(.6,3.2)(.8,3)(1.5,3)%
\put(1.6,3){\oval(.2,.2)[tl]}%
\put(1.6,3){\oval(.2,.2)[r]}%
\polyline(1.6,2.9)(1.8,2.4)(1.2,2.4)(1,2.5)(1,2.3)%
(1.2,2)(1.6,1.8)(1.7,1.8)(1.7,1.6)(1.4,1.5)%
(0,1.8)(-.2,2)%
\Line(.2,2.8)(.6,3)%
\polygon*(-1,2)(-2,0)(-2,-1)(-1.5,-2)(1,-2)%
(0,-3.6)(.4,-3.8)(.6,-3.4)(.8,-4)(2,-4)%
(1,-3.6)(1,-3)(1.6,-3.2)(2,-1.5)(0,-1)%
(0,-.6)(1.4,-.6)(1.8,-.4)(2,0)(0,0)%
(0,1.4)%
\polygon*(-3,2)(-2.8,3)(-2,4)(-1.5,4.1)(-1,4)(0,3.5)%
(1,3.8)(2.5,3.5)(3,3.3)(2,3.4)(0,3)(-1,2)(-2,1.6)%
(-2.7,2)(-2,2)(-1,3)(-2,3.5)(-2.6,3)%
\linethickness{#4\p@}%
\Line(1.7,1.6)(2,1.6)%
\Line(1.7,1.6)(1.9,1.4)%
\Line(1.7,1.6)(1.7,1.3)%
\end{picture}%
}
% Drawing the smaller witch:
\newcommand*\@MWi@Common@small@body{%
\Line(0,.9)(-.1,.7)%
\polyline(.3,1.6)(.4,1.5)(.75,1.5)(.9,1.2)(.5,1.2)%
(.6,1)(.8,.9)(.7,.75)(0,.9)(-.1,1)%
\Line(.1,1.4)(.3,1.5)%
\polygon*(-.5,1)(-1,0)(-1,-.5)(-.75,-1)(.5,-1)%
(0,-1.8)(.2,-1.9)(.3,-1.7)(.4,-2)(1,-2)%
(.5,-1.8)(.5,-1.5)(.8,-1.6)(1,-.75)(0,-.5)%
(0,.7)%
\polygon*(-1.5,1)(-1.4,1.5)(-1,2)(-.5,2)(0,1.75)%
(.5,1.9)(1.25,1.75)(0,1.5)(-.5,1)(-1,.8)%
(-1.2,1)(-1,1)(-.5,1.5)(-1,1.75)(-1.3,1.5)%
}
\newcommand*\@MWi@Small@witch[3]{%
\setlength\unitlength{\fontdimen 22 #1\tw@}%
\vrule \@width\z@ \@height\z@ \@depth\@ne\unitlength
\begin{picture}(6,3)(-3,-1)%
\linethickness{#3\p@}%
\Line(-1,-1)(3,1)%
\linethickness{#2\p@}%
\Line(-1,-1)(-2.5,-1.25)%
\Line(-1,-1)(-2.4,-1.5)%
\Line(-1,-1)(-2.25,-1.75)%
\Line(-1,-1)(-2,-2)%
\@MWi@Common@small@body
\polygon*(0,-.3)(.7,-.3)(.9,-.2)(1,0)(0,0)%
\end{picture}%
}
% Helper macros for "\overrightbroom":
\newcommand*\@MWi@mathpalette[6]{%
% A version of "\mathpalette" adapted to our needs, in which
% the macro passed in #1 must take (at least) four arguments,
% as follows:
% #1 := style selection for main style
% #2 := style selection for "relative-script" style
% #3 := font family selector (e.g., "\scriptfont")
% #4 := user-defined parameter
% #5 := main argument
% Below, we'll use the user-defined parameter to pass the line
% thickness for drawing the face.
%
% The parameters for a call to _this_ macro are the following:
% #1 := target macro
% #2 := value for user-defined parameter for display style
% #3 := value for user-defined parameter for text style
% #4 := value for user-defined parameter for script style
% #5 := value for user-defined parameter for scripscript style
\mathchoice
{#1\displaystyle \scriptstyle \scriptfont {#2}{#6}}%
{#1\textstyle \scriptstyle \scriptfont {#3}{#6}}%
{#1\scriptstyle \scriptscriptstyle \scriptscriptfont {#4}{#6}}%
{#1\scriptscriptstyle \scriptscriptstyle \scriptscriptfont {#5}{#6}}%
}
\newcommand*\@MWi@overarrow@with@witch[6]{%
% #1 := stretchable covering arrow
% #2 := base style
% #3 := style for covering arrow
% #4 := font family selector (e.g., "\scriptfont")
% #5 := line thickness for the witch
% #6 := base symbol
\vbox{\ialign{##\crcr
% the centered witch:
\hfil\@MWi@Small@witch@wo@broom #4{#5}\hfil\crcr
\noalign{\nointerlineskip}%
% the covering broom:
#1#3\crcr
\noalign{\nointerlineskip}%
% the covered subformula:
$\m@th\hfil #2#6\hfil$\crcr
}}%
}
% Drawing the small w/o the broom:
\newcommand*\@MWi@Small@witch@wo@broom[2]{%
\setlength\unitlength{\fontdimen 22 #1\tw@}%
\begin{picture}(0,4)(0,-2)%
\linethickness{#2\p@}%
\@MWi@Common@small@body
\polygon*(-.1,.4)(1,-.9)(1,-1.2)(.8,-1.2)(-.1,0)%
\end{picture}%
}
% Extensible broom (stub):
% \DeclareMathSymbol{\@MWi@left@broom@tail} {\mathrel}{AMSa}{"4B}
% \DeclareMathSymbol{\@MWi@right@broom@tail}{\mathrel}{AMSa}{"4C}
\newcommand*\@MWi@rightbroomfill@{%
\arrowfill@{%
\smash[t]%
% \smash % another possibility
{\ni}%
% {\@MWi@left@broom@tail}% another possibility
}\relbar\relbar
}
% Checking the math version:
\newcommand*\@MWi@is@bold@math{%
TT\fi
\def\@tempa{bold}%
\ifx\math@version\@tempa
}
% User-level commands:
\newcommand*\mathwitch{%
\mathop{%
\if\@MWi@is@bold@math
\mathchoice{%
\@MWi@Large@witch \textfont {.6}{1.2}{.15}%
}{%
\@MWi@Small@witch \textfont {.4}{}%
}{%
\@MWi@Small@witch \scriptfont {.3}{.6}%
}{%
\@MWi@Small@witch \scriptscriptfont {.15}{.4}%
}%
\else
\mathchoice{%
\@MWi@Large@witch \textfont {.3}{.8}{.1}%
}{%
\@MWi@Small@witch \textfont {.2}{.5}%
}{%
\@MWi@Small@witch \scriptfont {.15}{.3}%
}{%
\@MWi@Small@witch \scriptscriptfont {.1}{.2}%
}%
\fi
}% \displaylimits % as per default
}
\newcommand*\overrightbroom[1]{%
\if\@MWi@is@bold@math
\@MWi@mathpalette
{\@MWi@overarrow@with@witch\@MWi@rightbroomfill@}%
{.3}{.3}{.15}{.15}% line thicknesses
{#1}%
\else
\@MWi@mathpalette
{\@MWi@overarrow@with@witch\@MWi@rightbroomfill@}%
{.15}{.15}{.1}{.1}% line thicknesses
{#1}%
\fi
}
\makeatother
%--------------------------------------------------------------%
\begin{document}
A reduction my students are likely to make:
\[\mathwitch \frac{\sin x}{s} = x\,\mathrm{in}\]
The same reduction as an in-line formula:
\(\mathwitch \frac{\sin x}{s} = x\,\mathrm{in}\).
Test for ``operator-like'' behavior: $\mathwitch x$ versus
$\mathwitch(x)$---does anybody note the difference?
Let us also check that our $\mathwitch$~symbol does not make the lines further
apart than usual. Here it is again:\nobreak\space $\mathwitch b$.
A few more words to have enough plain lines in the paragraph to make it possible
to compare the leading. Was that enough? No, it wasn't: we'd like to get at
least one line further.
Now with limits:
\[
\mathwitch_{i=1}^{n} \frac
{\text{$i$-th magic term}}
{\text{$2^{i}$-th wizardry}}
\]
And repeated in-line: \( \mathwitch_{i=1}^{n} x_{i}y_{i} \).
Test for other math styles: subscript~$F_{\!\mathwitch\alpha}$, in-line
fraction \( \frac{\mathwitch m}{\mathwitch n} \), double superscript \(
2^{2^{\mathwitch\aleph_{0}}} \) (this one looks really awkward!).
\begingroup
\Huge
Look at the details of the display-style version:
\[
\mathwitch
\genfrac{<}{>}{0pt}{}
{\text{something terribly}}{\text{complicated}}
= 0
\]
Please note the beard\ldots~:-)\par
\endgroup
Now we've also got the \texttt{bold} math version:\mathversion{bold}
\[
\mathwitch
\genfrac{<}{>}{0pt}{}
{\textbf{something terribly}}{\textbf{complicated}}
= 0
\]
Compare it with \texttt{normal} math\mathversion{normal}:
\[
\mathwitch
\genfrac{<}{>}{0pt}{}
{\text{something terribly}}{\text{complicated}}
= 0
\]
In-line math comparison: {\boldmath $\mathwitch f(x)$} versus $\mathwitch f(x)$.
\errorcontextlines = 1000
The \verb|\overrightbroom| command, both in-line
\( \overrightbroom{x_{1}+\dots+x_{n}} \)
and displayed:
\begin{align*}
\overrightbroom{x_{1}+\dots+x_{n}} &= 0 &
\overrightbroom{f(x+y)} &= \overrightbroom{h(z)}+\overrightbroom{g(z)}
\end{align*}
\begingroup
\bfseries \mathversion{bold}
Again in bold: in-line
\( \overrightbroom{x_{1}+\dots+x_{n}} \)
and displayed:
\begin{align*}
\overrightbroom{x_{1}+\dots+x_{n}} &= 0 &
\overrightbroom{f(x+y)} &= \overrightbroom{h(z)}+\overrightbroom{g(z)}
\end{align*}
\endgroup
Text style \( \overrightbroom{x_{1}+\dots+x_{n}}=0 \)
versus script style \( P_{\overrightbroom{x_{1}+\dots+x_{n}}} \).
\end{document}
And here’s the output:
\documentclass{article} \begin{document}\centering \large November~9, 2016\par \vspace{1cm} \Huge Donald J. Trump\\is the 45th President\\of the United States of America!\end{document}count, ot talking politics should better be avoided on this site?