8

I am currently working on a paper and require an equation with e^x. I tried using the suggested layout of $\exp(x)$ but my output only shows an equation with exp(x) in the PDF output. Is there something that I am doing wrong is is there a specific package I need to use?

Any help would be appreciated.

8
  • 3
    Welcome to TeX.SX! Your question is not very clear: does by any chance $e^{x}$ do what you want?
    – GuM
    Sep 5 '18 at 10:48
  • Yes it does but I am confused why the alternative notation would not work since I have ensured that I did not make any mistakes in writing the $\exp(x)$ Sep 5 '18 at 10:54
  • 2
    The alternative notation is just that: there is no “translation” of \exp(x) into e^{x}. There are cases where the former notation is preferable to the latter.
    – egreg
    Sep 5 '18 at 10:57
  • 8
    The input \exp(x) is specifically meant to generate the word “exp” (in upright font), a left parenthesis, an “x” in math italic font, and a closing parenthesis. In LaTeX, to add a superscript to something you must use the ^ notation. I advise you not to try to write anything in LaTeX without having previously read an introductory guide (at least).
    – GuM
    Sep 5 '18 at 10:58
  • 4
    As already mentioned, \exp is an alternative notation to e^{...} that users should know. Sadly not everyone does. Consider \[\exp\biggl(\int_0^1 fdx\biggr) \qquad e^{\int_0^1 fdx} \] which of these are more redable? There are many examples of this where there are a short notation for simple input, and a companion notation for complicated input.
    – daleif
    Sep 5 '18 at 11:05
17

I think you may have misunderstood what you have been told.

\exp(x) is not an alternative to e^{x} in LaTeX, exp(x) is an alternative to ex in maths and physics etc.

The exp(x) notation is useful where x is some large or complicated expression, e.g.:

\[
  \exp\biggl(\, \sum_{n=1}^{10} \frac{1}{n} \biggr)
\]

enter image description here

Which I certainly think is a big improvement over:

\[
  e^{\sum_{n=1}^{10} \frac{1}{n}}
\]

enter image description here

The ex notation is useful where x is something nice and small, like, well:

\[
  e^{x}
\]

enter image description here

So LaTeX supports both, \exp(x) for exp(x) and e^{x} for ex. \exp(x) is not a LaTeX shorthand (longhand?) for e^{x} = ex.

5
  • 1
    A further improvement is adding \, between \biggl( and \sum: try and judge for yourself.
    – egreg
    Sep 5 '18 at 12:43
  • @egreg I wanted to do that, but I didn't trust my own judgement, I'll make the change, thanks!
    – Au101
    Sep 5 '18 at 12:44
  • 1
    I recommend \, also when a radical is followed by a parenthesis with a similar height, for instance (and in other cases).
    – egreg
    Sep 5 '18 at 12:46
  • Good obs @egreg!! Do you know about automatic spacing? Why \, but \; no? Is subjective?
    – manooooh
    Sep 5 '18 at 13:08
  • 2
    @manooooh \; is too much; a thin space is usually the best.
    – egreg
    Sep 5 '18 at 13:59

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.