6

I want to write following system of equation in my paper, but I don't know how: enter image description here

Here is a code that I've tried, but it does not work:

R\geqslant R_t \equiv \begin{cases} \frac{r_{t+1} (1-W(k_t)}{f'(k{t+1}    
\lambda} &\mbox{if } k_t < K(\lambda) \\ 
\frac{r_{t+1}}{f'(k_{t+1})} & \mbox{if } k_t\geqslant K(\lambda) 
\end{cases} 

Any suggestions will be very helpful. Thanks

  • 1
    Excuse me but the code is different from the image. Have I understood well? – Sebastiano Feb 25 at 13:17
  • 3
    Consider accepting one of the provided answers if your question is solved (check mark on the left hand side of the answers). – Dr. Manuel Kuehner Feb 25 at 13:44
  • I don't understand what you were having trouble with. The only error I got compiling was about \geqslant. What about didn't work? Or were you wanting to get something closer to your image than you have? I would say that your code gives a better output than that image. – Teepeemm Feb 25 at 16:57
13

I would load the mathtools package, which is a superset of the amsmath package, and employ that package's dcases* environment.

enter image description here

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{mathtools} % for 'dcases*' env.
\begin{document}
\[
R\ge R_t \equiv
\begin{dcases*}
\frac{r_{t+1}}{f'(k_{t+1})}\frac{1-W(k_t)}{\lambda} 
   & if  $k_t < K(\lambda)$\,, \\[1ex]
\frac{r_{t+1}}{f'(k_{t+1})} 
   & if $k_t\ge K(\lambda)$\,.
\end{dcases*}
\]
\end{document}
  • 1
    Is this command better than the usual cases command? – knzhou Feb 25 at 16:38
  • 2
    @knzhou - I wouldn't say that dcases is necessarily better than cases, certainly not in the sense of it being *always and everywhere" better than cases. The d in dcases denotes "automatic display-style math mode. It's handy if one has to typeset expressions such as \frac, which might look a whole lot better when rendered in display-style math mode rather than in text-style math mode. Conversely, cases is much more parsimonious, space-wise, than dcases. If conserving space is an important criterion, by all means go with cases. – Mico Feb 25 at 16:44
  • 2
    Makes sense, thanks! I was just asking in case cases had been declared obsolete by people in the know for some reason, like how \[ ... \] is supposed to be strictly better than $$ ... $$. – knzhou Feb 25 at 16:50
3

Welcome to TeX.SE. Here my (fast) proposal from your original code:

enter image description here

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}

\begin{document}
\[R\geqslant R_t \equiv \begin{cases} \dfrac{r_{t+1} (1-W(k_t))}{f'(k{t+1}    
\lambda)} &\mbox{if } k_t < K(\lambda) \\
&\\
\dfrac{r_{t+1}}{f'(k_{t+1})} & \mbox{if } k_t\geqslant K(\lambda) 
\end{cases}\] 
\end{document}

EDIT: By correct comment of @Yorgos:

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
\begin{document}
\[
R\geqslant R_t \equiv 
\begin{cases} 
\dfrac{r_{t+1} (1-W(k_t))}{f'(k{t+1} \lambda)} 
    & \text{if } k_t < K(\lambda) \\
&\\  % blank row
\dfrac{r_{t+1}}{f'(k_{t+1})} 
    & \text{if } k_t\geqslant K(\lambda) 
\end{cases}
\] 
\end{document}
  • 1
    i don't think that mbox is necessary, since & aligns. also i prefer equation environment, since it allows for numbering the equation – Yorgos Feb 25 at 13:09
  • 1
    @Yorgos I accept your suggestion correctly. I have only taken the code from the user. :( – Sebastiano Feb 25 at 13:11
  • I believe that the k{t+1} term in the first denominator should be changed to k_{t+1}. – Mico Feb 25 at 13:22
  • @Mico Thank you very much for edit and all ....You're right for you comment. – Sebastiano Feb 25 at 15:58

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.