1

EDIT: I want to write this

enter image description here

but with a dot over the middle - for differentiation of the value in parenthesis with respect to frame I. However when I do ${^{\rm I}(\dot {I_{\rm p} \omega_{\rm p} \hat b_3})}$ I get

enter image description here

I have tried all sorts of variations that should give me something close to what I want but none of them work. The closest I can get is

enter image description here

by purposefully putting the hat over the whole b_3 symbol using (\hat {b_3}). However I need the hat to be over the b only.

  • 3
    MathJax is intentionally disabled on the TeX.SE, as users are likely far more interested in seeing the underlying TeX and LaTeX code than in the way it's rendered on screen. – Mico Nov 14 '17 at 16:24
  • 3
    \rm has been deprecated for over 20 years, don't use it (especially not in math mode) – David Carlisle Nov 14 '17 at 16:44
  • Weird, I use it all the time. How is roman text compiled in math mode now? – Thomas Kirven Nov 14 '17 at 16:45
  • \rm has not been defined in the latex format since 1993. It is added as a back compatibility definition by article.cls but not all classes do this. for example. \mathrm{p} – David Carlisle Nov 14 '17 at 16:47
  • @ThomasKirven yes although I'd be interested to know the results if you tested the patch I just posted, as I could add that to amsmath, but the code here is very delicate.... – David Carlisle Nov 14 '17 at 23:15
5

It's another instance of Why do arguments to nested \tilde or \breve commands reappear when amsmath is used?

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}

\newsavebox{\accentbox}
\newcommand{\compositeaccents}[2]{%
  \sbox\accentbox{$#2$}#1{\usebox\accentbox}}

\begin{document}

Bad: ${^{\rm I}(\dot {I_{\rm p} \omega_{\rm p} \hat b_3})}$

\bigskip

Good: ${}^{\mathrm{I}}\compositeaccents{\dot}{(I_{\mathrm{p}} \omega_{\mathrm{p}} \hat{b}_3})$

\end{document}

enter image description here

However, I'd avoid such notation.

Please, note that \rm has been deprecated for 25 years.

  • 2
    shouldn't I fix that in amsmath ? – David Carlisle Nov 14 '17 at 17:33
  • @DavidCarlisle You're welcome! – egreg Nov 14 '17 at 17:42
  • 1
    @DavidCarlisle if it isn't a feature, you should... – Skillmon Nov 14 '17 at 18:42
1

It is impossible to see why you are getting overprinting from your fragments, the following document produces

enter image description here

\documentclass{article}

\begin{document}

${^{\mathrm{I}}\dot {({I}_{\mathrm{p}} \omega_{\mathrm{p}} \hat{b}_3})}$
\end{document}

As it turns out, this is an amsmath feature (although amsmath was not mentioned in the question) Not fully tested but one possible fix is below. I could add something like this to amsmath but it needs more testing, if you have a larger real docuemnt I'd be interested if this works

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}

\makeatletter

\def\mathaccentV#1#2#3#4#5{%
  \ifmmode
    \gdef\macc@tmp{\macc@depth\@ne}%
    \setbox\z@\hbox{%
% only short circuit \mathaccentV if only one token after expansion
% not quite the right test but hard to test for only one math atom
      \ifcat$\@gobble#5\@empty$\let\mathaccentV\macc@test\fi
% end of change
      \let\use@mathgroup\@gobbletwo \let\select@group\@gobblethree
      \frozen@everymath{}$#5$%
    }%
    \macc@tmp
    \ifnum\macc@depth=\@ne
      \global\let\macc@nucleus\@empty
      \mathaccent"\accentclass@
    \else
      \@xp\macc@nested
    \fi
    #2#3#4{#5}%
    \macc@nucleus
  \else
    \@xp\nonmatherr@\csname#1\endcsname
  \fi
}

\makeatother
\begin{document}


$\dot{\hat{b}}$


${^{\mathrm{I}}\dot {({I}_{\mathrm{p}} \omega_{\mathrm{p}} \hat{b}_3})}$
\end{document}
0

An alternative:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,stackengine}
\stackMath
\begin{document}
$^{\mathrm{I}}(\stackon[1pt]{I_{\mathrm{p}} \omega_{\mathrm{p}} \hat b_3}{.})$
\end{document}

enter image description here

You might also consider something less confusing, such as $^{\mathrm{I}}[\frac{d}{dt}(I_{\mathrm{p}} \omega_{\mathrm{p}} \hat b_3)]$

enter image description here

or, if the syntax makes sense, $\frac{d}{dt}\,^{\mathrm{I}}(I_{\mathrm{p}} \omega_{\mathrm{p}} \hat b_3)$

enter image description here

  • You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. But yeah I introduce the dot notation earlier in the paper (usually it's over just one symbol so it's less confusing) so I just gotta stick with that. – Thomas Kirven Nov 14 '17 at 16:51
  • Note: amsmath is not required for this answer. – Steven B. Segletes Nov 14 '17 at 16:53
  • 2
    @ThomasKirven nothing is wrong with using two notations for the same thing if one is better in some the other in other cases. – Skillmon Nov 14 '17 at 18:44

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.