# too much vertical space after tabularx with equations

I am attempting to use tabularx to put multiple numbered equations on the same line, as suggested in this answer.

MWE 1:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\begin{document}
blah blah text

\noindent\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{@{}XX@{}}
$$1+1+2$$
&
$$2+2=4$$
\end{tabularx}
%
blah blah text
\end{document}


This produces

MWE 2:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\begin{document}
blah blah text

\noindent\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{@{}XX@{}}
asdfasfd
&
asfdasdf
\end{tabularx}
%
blah blah text
\end{document}


This produces

MWE 2 is fine, the spacing is the same on the top and the bottom. What gives for MWE 1 though? How do I get it such that the spacing before and after the tabularx environment is the same as what I would normally get from an equation environment?

To economize drastically on (vertical) whitespace, you could encase the equation environments in minipage environments (of width \hsize). Alternatively, don't use equation environments at all; instead, use low-level code to display the math material, to increment the equation counter, and to display the equation number.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\begin{document}

\hrule
\noindent%
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{@{}XX@{}}
\begin{minipage}{\hsize}
$$1+1+2$$
\end{minipage}
&
\begin{minipage}{\hsize}
$$2+2=4$$
\end{minipage}
\end{tabularx}
\hrule

\bigskip
\hrule
\noindent%
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{@{}XX@{}}
\hfill$\displaystyle 1+1=2$\hfill
\refstepcounter{equation}(\theequation)
&
\hfill$\displaystyle 2+2=4$\hfill
\refstepcounter{equation}(\theequation)
\end{tabularx}
\hrule

\bigskip
\hrule
\noindent
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{@{}XX@{}}
asdfasfd & asfdasdf
\end{tabularx}
\hrule

\end{document}

• thank you! egreg's solution worked too but I am having trouble getting his way to play nicely with autonum. The only issue I am having is how to get the vertical spacing around the tabularx environment to be the same as what I would get around a normal equation environment. I have something that looks like this, where the space at the top is higher than the bottom, but both of them are smaller that what I would get from an equation environment. I think some vspace commands should fix it, I am just not sure on the lengths I need to use. Jun 28 '19 at 22:34

You can (locally) set the spacing parameters above and below displays to zero.

It's easier if you also define a proper environment. If you need consecutive equation environments (but you shouldn't), use the shown trick.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{environ}

\usepackage{lipsum}% just for the example

\newlength{\savedbdss}
\NewEnviron{multieq}[1]{%
$\begin{minipage}{\displaywidth} \setlength{\savedbdss}{\belowdisplayshortskip} \setlength{\abovedisplayshortskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\belowdisplayshortskip}{0pt}% \begin{tabularx}{\displaywidth}{@{}*{#1}{>{\noindent\vspace*{-\baselineskip}}X}@{}} \BODY \end{tabularx} \vspace{-\belowdisplayskip} \vspace{-\savedbdss} \end{minipage}$
}

\begin{document}

\lipsum[1][1-4]
\begin{multieq}{2}
$$1+1+2$$
&
$$2+2=4$$
\end{multieq}
\lipsum[2][1-3]
\begin{multieq}{2}
$$1+1+2$$
&
$$2+2=4$$
\\[-\savedbdss]
$$1+1+2$$
&
$$2+2=4$$
\end{multieq}
\lipsum[2][1-3]

\end{document}


• What do you mean when you say that I shouldn't need consecutive equation environments? How else would I achieve what I am going for here? Jun 28 '19 at 20:52
• @teerav42 Already having two numbered equations side-by-side is confusing… Jun 28 '19 at 21:28
• You think so @egreg ? The alternative is having short and skinny equations stacked on top of each other, which results in lots of unused whitespace on either side. Perhaps there's a compelling argument for one or the other that I am missing, but it seems to me to be a matter of stylistic preference, no? Jun 28 '19 at 21:51
• Also, @egreg : this seems like a pretty good solution in general but I am having trouble when I add label's to the equations. I think the problem is coming because I am also using autonum, and there seems to be an incompatibility. Mico's solution might be better for me, I just need to figure out how to get the spacing around the environment correct! Jun 28 '19 at 22:25