3

I would like to add indices as subscripts and superscripts to a couple of bounds denoted by underline (lower bound) and overline (upper bound), but I am not able to keep the same well-shaped look of the overall symbol, since the superscript is raised and the subscript is lowered with respect to the symbol not underlined/overlined (so that the resulting formula exceeds the textstyle space). Am I doing something wrong?

PS: The same problem affects only the subscript when used together with a superscript:

\[ \theta_k \; \underline \theta_k \]
\[ \theta^{\delta} \; \overline \theta^{\delta} \]
\[ \theta_k \;  \theta^{\delta} \; \theta_k^{\delta}\]

enter image description here

0
1

This still doesn't take care of line 3 (combined sub/superscript), but it does remedy the under/overline issue. I personally do not find the line 3 issue objectionable.

\documentclass{article} 
\newcommand\utheta{\vphantom{theta}\smash{\underline \theta}}
\newcommand\otheta{\vphantom{theta}\smash{\overline \theta}}
\begin{document}
\[ \theta_k \; \utheta_k \]
\[ \theta^{\delta} \; \otheta^{\delta} \]
\[ \theta_k \;  \theta^{\delta} \; \theta_k^{\delta}\]
\end{document}

enter image description here

2
  • thank you, this works perfectly. As regards the 'third line', I am aware that Latex has to process the whole formula in order to get a cleaner output; what puzzles me is the fact that, at least in principle, there is enough space for both subscripts and superscripts, so the overall layout is a little bit odd or too stretched out (maybe this is due to the skew positioning of the theta character). Can I ask you which is the combined role of \vphantom and \smash in your solution?
    – Vexx23
    Dec 31 '16 at 16:16
  • @Vexx23 The \smash says to treat its argument as if it had zero height, effectively removing the \overline and \underline from affecting the script placement. The \vphantom says to insert a zero-width nothing, but which occupies the same vertical footprint as its argument. Thus, a nothing the size of a \theta is placed, followed by something which is treated as zero height, but has the desired appearance of a barred-theta. Dec 31 '16 at 17:13
2

In my opinion, the \underaccent{\bar} command, or \underaccent{\widebar}, borrowing the \widebar symbol from mathabx, looks better, because it takes into account the italic angle of the glyphs:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath, accents}%

\DeclareFontFamily{U}{mathx}{\hyphenchar\font45}
\DeclareFontShape{U}{mathx}{m}{n}{
<5><6><7><8><9><10>
<10.95><12><14.4><17.28><20.74><24.88>
mathx10
}{}
\DeclareSymbolFont{mathx}{U}{mathx}{m}{n}
\DeclareFontSubstitution{U}{mathx}{m}{n}
\DeclareMathAccent{\widebar}{0}{mathx}{"73}

 \newcommand\utheta{\vphantom{theta}\smash{\underline \theta}}
\newcommand\otheta{\vphantom{theta}\smash{\overline \theta}}

\begin{document}

\[ \theta_k \; \utheta_k \;\underaccent{\bar}{\theta}_k\;\underaccent{\widebar}{\theta}_k\]
\[ \theta^{\delta} \; \otheta^{\delta} \;\bar{\theta}^{\delta} \;\widebar{\theta}^{\delta} \]

\end{document} 

enter image description here

1
  • third and fourth outputs are by far cleaner, it is something one realizes only when seen up close.
    – Vexx23
    Jan 2 '17 at 11:12

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.