0

I really can t find an answer to this question (so it just might be a super stupid question or...) but how can we give to a numbered set of equations a "supra" number without this number to be really mentioned in the final document (because it simply doesn t exist). I d like to reference to an entire set of equations lateron in my text.

For instance I d like to have this example set of equations to have a "secret" "supra"-number

\begin{flalign}
\lambda_t&=c_t... \tag{3.4a} \\
\lambda_tw_t&=\theta ... \tag{3.4b} \\
y_t&=a_t^{\alpha_N}....\tag{3.4c}  \\
...
\end{flalign}

I d be so happy if someone has an idea and could help me please

Regards

2

You can put a subequations environment around your formulas, then you do not even need \tags:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\begin{subequations}\label{eqs:abc}
\begin{flalign}
\lambda_t&=c_t...\\
\lambda_tw_t&=\theta ... \\
y_t&=a_t^{\alpha_N}....\\
...
\end{flalign}
\end{subequations}

Ref: \ref{eqs:abc}
\end{document}

enter image description here

  • Thank you so much! I knew that the tagging-thing was somehow strange, but an additional problem I have is, that this set of equations belongs to section 3.3 of my work. However, it is the only set of equations in this section and working with subequations makes these equations beeing numbered 3.3.1a, 3.3.1a and so on (which doesn t make sense as there is no 3.3.2...). I´d like them to be be numbered 3.3a & so o, but I need the subequations-definition in order to give them one label for further referencing.. right? Or is there any chance to change their numbering while still using subequations? – Ruth Mar 9 at 9:31

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.