How to write this equation in latex?

I wrote this code but not getting it.

enter image description here

E_{t-2}P_t=\frac{1}{2}(E_{t-2}m_t+\underbrace{E_{t-2}v_t}_\textrm{=0}-\underbrace{E_{t-2}u_t}_\textrm{=0}+(\frac{(1-\zeta )}{2})(\underbrace{E_{t-2}E_{t-1}P_t}_\textrm{=E_{t-2}}+\underbrace{E_{t-2}E_{t-2}P_t}_\textrm{=E_{t-2}})+(\frac{\zeta }{2})(E_{t-2}P_{t-1}+E_{t-2}P_{t-2})
  • 1
    Please add some \usepackages to make your code compilable.
    – user156344
    May 24, 2019 at 5:20
  • Can you elaborate a bit more? What kind of '\usepackage' should I use?
    – Henam
    May 24, 2019 at 5:26
  • 1
    Anyway you already got an answer, but this is my note for your future questions: if you are using Mathjax, do not ask it here as Mathjax is off topic on this site. Sometimes we need a compilable code to reproduce the issue, and without it we can hardly do anything.
    – user156344
    May 24, 2019 at 5:29
  • Hey, no offence, but I'm using LaTex only.
    – Henam
    May 24, 2019 at 5:33
  • I believe JouleV is asking for an MWE. The point is if I copy and paste the code you have written into a blank .tex file and try to compile it, it won't work. So then I have to do the job of adding a template, with a \documentclass and perhaps \usepackage{amsmath} and so on, \begin{document} etc. and you could have saved me that tiny chore. It's polite and helps us to help you.
    – Au101
    May 24, 2019 at 20:56

2 Answers 2


You're almost there. Instead of





I would also introduce some line breaks in the long equation.

enter image description here

-\underbrace{\E_{t-2}u_t}_{=0}\Bigr) \\
+\frac{(1-\zeta )}{2}\Bigl(
\underbrace{\E_{t-2}\E_{t-2}P_t}_{=\E_{t-2}}\Bigr) \\
+\frac{\zeta }{2}\Bigl(\E_{t-2}P_{t-1}+\E_{t-2}P_{t-2}\Bigr)

You can use Mathpix to generate LaTeX code for any mathematical equation by simply taking a screenshot of the equation. It will save you tons of time in future like it did for me after I discovered it!

Mathpix demo

  • 4
    It is pretty cool, but I never recommend automated generators for LaTeX. They may give nice results, but never good results.
    – user156344
    May 24, 2019 at 6:23
  • 2
    I totally agree. I too never rely completely on automated generators, but I do find it much easier to tweak the codes rather than building it up from the scratch. Also, these codes help you learn LaTeX as well!
    – Ashirwad
    May 24, 2019 at 6:48
  • 1
    You know, I have to upvote your answer for the last sentence of your comment
    – user156344
    May 24, 2019 at 6:50
  • 1
    Thanks! I can't thank the developers of this software enough for helping me prepare a report with too many equations in it with significantly lesser efforts as well as enriching my LaTeX vocabulary.
    – Ashirwad
    May 24, 2019 at 7:05
  • 1
    Strictly speaking, this posting does not address the OP's question. Why? You copied-and-pasted a screenshot from my answer -- which, ahem, is already known to be based on valid LaTeX code -- and showed that the software can generate something that resembles decent, though not solid, LaTeX code. (Why "not solid"? Well, for one, note the use of $$ to start and stop an unnumbered displayed equation -- definitely not good practice for a LaTeX document.) It would be more impressive if you demonstrated that working with the OP's screenshot led to a satisfactory chunk of LaTeX code.
    – Mico
    May 24, 2019 at 16:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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