2

I am preparing to send a paper to springer journal, In (instructions for Authors-> Scientific style) there is an instruction said: Bold for vectors, tensors, and matrices. I used \bm to bold to do that:

\begin{equation}
\frac{d\bm{P}_k^-}{dt}=\bm{F}_x(\bm{m}_k^-(t),t,\bm{\theta})\bm{P}_k^- +\bm{P}_k^- \bm{F}_x^T(\bm{m}_k^-(t),t,\bm{\theta}) + \Sigma(\bm{m}_k^-(t),t,\bm{\theta})
\label{eq:Euler}
\end{equation}

I get :

enter image description here

but in springer journal the equation looks like: enter image description here

How can I fix that?

2
  • 1
    Also the derivative d's need to be upright, which is the only logical way to do it. But sadly Springer uses italic T's for transposed, which is inconsistent.
    – lblb
    Commented May 12, 2017 at 21:28
  • @lblb most mathematicians I know don't use straight d's, they look bad
    – daleif
    Commented May 12, 2017 at 22:06

1 Answer 1

4

You have to use mathbf to produce the upright math fonts.

Since they usually represent vectors, you can renew the \vec command.

Also I created a derivative operator \drv which prints an upright d (as a derivative sign) keeping the spacing (at least to its right) that is present in the text

Here an implementation

   \documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\renewcommand{\vec}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\drv}{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}
\begin{document}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\drv\vec{P}_k^-}{\drv t}=\vec{F}_x(\vec{m}_k^-(t),t,\vec{\theta})\vec{P}_k^- +\vec{P}_k^- \vec{F}_x^T(\vec{m}_k^-(t),t,\vec{\theta}) + \Sigma(\vec{m}_k^-(t),t,\vec{\theta})
\label{eq:Euler}
\end{equation}

\end{document}

enter image description here

Thanks to @GustavoMezzetti and @lblb for their insightful remarks


EDIT

Since the user asked, I provide a solution, which I don't know if optimal, concerning the bold math symbols.

The "normal" way in fact should be

  1. Load bm and upgreek

  2. Substitute the greek letter with its upshape, ie theta becomes uptheta

  3. Call \bm{\uptheta} instead of vec

If one wants to keep the vec version, instead, has only to substitute theta with uptheta to obtain what he wants:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,bm,mathtools,upgreek}
\renewcommand{\vec}[1]{\bm{\mathrm{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\drv}{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}
\begin{document}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\drv\vec{P}_k^-}{\drv t}=\vec{F}_x(\vec{m}_k^-(t),t,\vec{\uptheta})\vec{P}_k^- +\vec{P}_k^- \vec{F}_x^T(\vec{m}_k^-(t),t,\vec{\uptheta}) + \Sigma(\vec{m}_k^-(t),t,\vec{\uptheta})
\label{eq:Euler}
\end{equation}

\end{document}

enter image description here

13
  • 1
    +1, but I beg to disagree with the \ensuremath: IMHO, a command like \vec should be used only in math mode, and rise an error if not.
    – GuM
    Commented May 12, 2017 at 21:12
  • @GustavoMezzetti Ok, I understand and I had doubts myself. I removed the \ensuremath
    – Moriambar
    Commented May 12, 2017 at 21:12
  • You'd have to use upright derivative d's too.
    – lblb
    Commented May 12, 2017 at 21:27
  • @lblb right. done
    – Moriambar
    Commented May 12, 2017 at 21:36
  • But, wait: I think that with \drv(x^2) (say) we are going to have a surpise…!
    – GuM
    Commented May 12, 2017 at 21:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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