3

I am trying to put the following equation and equivalence in Latex, but I face with strange output, May you please help me to solve this issue:

\begin{document}
\begin{flalign*}
    (f_{uvw},f_{u_{1}v_{1}w_{1}})_{[u]([v][w])} & =f_{uvw}-f_{u_{1}v_{1}w_{1}} &\\
    &= [u]([v]([v_{1}][w_{1}]))-([u][v])([v_{1}][w_{1}])+([u]([v_{1}][w_{1}]))[v]\\
    &-[u]([v]([v_{1}][w_{1}]))+[u](([v][v_{1}])[w_{1}])-[u](([v][w_{1}])[v_{1}])&\\
    \equiv -(([u][v])[v_{1}])[w_{1}] + (([u][v])[w_{1}])[v_{1}] +(([u][v_{1}])[w_{1}])[v_{1}] \\
    & -(([u][w_{1}])[v_{1}])[v] + (([u][v])[v_{1}])[w_{1}] -(([u][v_{1}])[v])[w_{1}] \\
    &-(([u][w_{1}])[v])[v_{1}] + (([u][w_{1}])[v_{1}])[v]-(([u][v])[w_{1}])[v_{1}]  \\
    &+(([u][w_{1}])[v])[v_{1}] +(([u][v_{1}])[v])[w_{1}] _(([u][v_{1}])[w_{1}])[v_{1}] 
 \end{flalign*}
\end{document}
1
  • Welcome to TeX.SX! I'm not sure you really need flalign; I find it's often a bit abused.
    – egreg
    Apr 1, 2017 at 16:40

3 Answers 3

7

You don't say what output you want but I guess you are missing one &

enter image description here

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\begin{flalign*}
    (f_{uvw},f_{u_{1}v_{1}w_{1}})_{[u]([v][w])} & =f_{uvw}-f_{u_{1}v_{1}w_{1}} &\\
    &= [u]([v]([v_{1}][w_{1}]))-([u][v])([v_{1}][w_{1}])+([u]([v_{1}][w_{1}]))[v]\\
    &-[u]([v]([v_{1}][w_{1}]))+[u](([v][v_{1}])[w_{1}])-[u](([v][w_{1}])[v_{1}])&\\
    \equiv
& 
-(([u][v])[v_{1}])[w_{1}] + (([u][v])[w_{1}])[v_{1}] +(([u][v_{1}])[w_{1}])[v_{1}] \\
    & -(([u][w_{1}])[v_{1}])[v] + (([u][v])[v_{1}])[w_{1}] -(([u][v_{1}])[v])[w_{1}] \\
    &-(([u][w_{1}])[v])[v_{1}] + (([u][w_{1}])[v_{1}])[v]-(([u][v])[w_{1}])[v_{1}]  \\
    &+(([u][w_{1}])[v])[v_{1}] +(([u][v_{1}])[v])[w_{1}] _(([u][v_{1}])[w_{1}])[v_{1}] 
 \end{flalign*}
\end{document}
0
10

Just for fun [!?], here's a refinement of David's approach. It adds a bit of extra vertical whitespace after rows 1 and 3, it provides indentation of the material in rows 3, 5, 6, and 7, and it fixes an issue with the material that's supposed to be in subscript in the final additive term in the final row.

enter image description here

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath} % for 'flalign*' env.
\begin{document}
\begin{flalign*}
    (f_{uvw},f_{u_1 v_1 w_1})_{[u]([v][w])} 
    &= f_{uvw}-f_{u_1v_1w_1} \\[0.5ex]
    &=      [u]([v]([v_1][w_1]))-([u][v])([v_1][w_1])+([u]([v_1][w_1]))[v]\\
    &\quad -[u]([v]([v_1][w_1])) + [u](([v][v_1])[w_1]) -[u](([v][w_1])[v_1])\\[0.5ex]
    &\equiv-(([u][v])[v_1])[w_1] + (([u][v])[w_1])[v_1] +(([u][v_1])[w_1])[v_1] \\
    &\quad -(([u][w_1])[v_1])[v] + (([u][v])[v_1])[w_1] -(([u][v_1])[v])[w_1] \\
    &\quad -(([u][w_1])[v])[v_1] + (([u][w_1])[v_1])[v] -(([u][v])[w_1])[v_1]  \\
    &\quad +(([u][w_1])[v])[v_1] + (([u][v_1])[v])[w_1]_{(([u][v_1])[w_1])[v_1]}
 \end{flalign*}
\end{document}
0
1

Some more fun with fleqn from nccmath and multlined from mathtools. I interpreted differently the code at the end of the last line:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{showframe}
\renewcommand\ShowFrameLinethickness{0.3pt}
\usepackage{mathtools, nccmath}

\begin{document}

\begin{fleqn}
  \begin{align*}
 & \mathrlap{ (f_{uvw},f_{u_{1}v_{1}w_{1}})_{[u]([v][w])} =f_{uvw}-f_{u_{1}v_{1}w_{1}}} \\
      & & & =\begin{multlined}[t] [u]([v]([v_{1}][w_{1}]))-([u][v])([v_{1}][w_{1}])+([u]([v_{1}][w_{1}]))[v]\\
    -[u]([v]([v_{1}][w_{1}]))+[u](([v][v_{1}])[w_{1}])-[u](([v][w_{1}])[v_{1}])\end{multlined}\\
   & & & \equiv
\begin{multlined}[t]
-(([u][v])[v_{1}])[w_{1}] + (([u][v])[w_{1}])[v_{1}] +(([u][v_{1}])[w_{1}])[v_{1}] \\
 -(([u][w_{1}])[v_{1}])[v] + (([u][v])[v_{1}])[w_{1}] -(([u][v_{1}])[v])[w_{1}] \\
-(([u][w_{1}])[v])[v_{1}] + (([u][w_{1}])[v_{1}])[v]-(([u][v])[w_{1}])[v_{1}] \\
+(([u][w_{1}])[v])[v_{1}] +(([u][v_{1}])[v])[w_{1}]-(([u][v_{1}])[w_{1}])[v_{1}]
\end{multlined}
 \end{align*}
\end{fleqn}

\end{document} 

enter image description here

1
  • +1. I see you interpreted the _ (underscore) character in the last line as a typo and replaced it with -. Was this a hunch or did you actually understand the mathematics sufficiently to realize that _ was a typo? Just curious.
    – Mico
    Apr 2, 2017 at 7:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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