# Bigger exclamation mark

How do you make the exclamation mark to be as big as the bracket? Thanks for your help!

• can't you write: $n!$ where $n=\frac{p-1}{2}$ ? – Thruston Nov 13 '16 at 0:34
• Have you considered using an inline fraction, i.e., writing ((p-1)/2)!? – Mico Nov 13 '16 at 0:37
• Or (\tfrac{p - 1}{2})! – Au101 Nov 13 '16 at 0:41
• Would you ask for a bigger “log“ in \log\left(\frac{1+x}{x}\right)? I guess you wouldn't. For the “factorial” operator it is exactly the same, apart from the position of the operator. – egreg Nov 13 '16 at 9:45
• use the Γ-function – st.vit Nov 15 '16 at 13:13

It can be done -- but it shouldn't.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{graphicx} % for "\resizebox" macro
\newlength\mylen
\settoheight{\mylen}{$\bigg)$}
\newcommand\bigbang{\vcenter{\hbox{\resizebox{!}{1.6\mylen}{!}}}}
\begin{document}
$\Biggl( \biggl( \frac{p-1}{2}\biggr) \bigbang \Biggr)$
\end{document}

• May I ask you why shouldn't it be done? – The Minh Tran Nov 13 '16 at 7:04
• @TheMinhTran - Some adjectives I'd use to characterize the result of supersizing the exclamation mark: Ridiculous, preposterous, counterproductive, distracting, bizarre. Do you need more? – Mico Nov 13 '16 at 8:05
• Have I then understood correctly, that in math papers they leave the exclamation mark the normal size? (that it doesn't depend on the size of the bracket in front of it?) – The Minh Tran Nov 13 '16 at 11:45
• @TheMinhTran - I have obviously not read every single published math paper in existence. That said, I've also never come across a paper that sported a humongous factorial symbol of the type shown in the answers Gustavo and I have provided. As I observed in an earlier comment, you should think seriously about using inline-fraction notation in these circumstances, i.e., write ((p-1)/2)!. That way, there will never even a need to think about enlarging the factorial symbol. – Mico Nov 13 '16 at 13:23
• Ok, Thanks a lot! (I am sorry if my questions seemed to be offensive to you, I really didn't mean to ;) ) – The Minh Tran Nov 13 '16 at 14:24

The same result as Mico’s can be obtained with Steven B. Segletes’ scalerel package:

% My standard header for TeX.SX answers:
\documentclass[a4paper]{article} % To avoid confusion, let us explicitly
% declare the paper format.

\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}         % Not always necessary, but recommended.
% End of standard header.  What follows pertains to the problem at hand.

\usepackage{amsmath} % unrelated, but always recommendable when math is involved
\usepackage{scalerel}

\begin{document}

Some text before the equation.
$\Biggl(\biggl(\frac{p-1}{2}\biggr) % ( paren match \scalerel*{!}{\bigg)}\Biggr)$

\end{document}


(I was testing the code while Mico answered… :-)

Edit: I have corrected the code (it is \scalerel*, not \scalerel!), and I take the opportunity to show the output and to renew Mico’s recommendation (see comments… :-): don’t do it!

Addition: I’ve been checking whether the result could look better if one uses \stretchrel instead of \scalerel, but I wouldn’t say so…

% My standard header for TeX.SX answers:
\documentclass[a4paper]{article} % To avoid confusion, let us explicitly
% declare the paper format.

\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}         % Not always necessary, but recommended.
% End of standard header.  What follows pertains to the problem at hand.

\usepackage{amsmath} % unrelated, but always recommendable when math is involved
\usepackage{scalerel}

\begin{document}

Some text before the equation.
$\Biggl(\biggl(\frac{p-1}{2}\biggr) % ( paren match \scalerel*{!}{\bigg)}\Biggr)$

Perhaps better with \verb|\stretchrel|?
$\Biggl(\biggl(\frac{p-1}{2}\biggr) % ( paren match \stretchrel*[500]{!}{\bigg)}\Biggr)$
I~wouldn't say so!

\end{document}


Output: