What is the correct spacing if I want to write phrases like "d=3-dimensional".
If I just write $d=1$-dimensional
, the spacing around the equal-sign seems to be way too wide for me?
(Maybe also the spacing around the "-" could be a little bit too small?)
(I want to use this formulation to subtly remind the reader that the input dimension is called $d$
in this text, while telling that the current sections only deals with the 1-dimensional case.)
Example:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\begin{document}
Define a neural network $\mathcal{NN}_\theta$ as a function from $X=\R^d$ to $Y=\R$ s.t.
\[
\mathcal{NN}_\theta (x)=\dots defintion \dots \quad\forall x\in X
\]
For the rest of the section only the the $d=1$-dimensional case is considered.
\end{document}
(PS: Probably one should also add something against hyphenation, like mentioned here: Avoid hyphenation in "2-D". It would be nice if this were already included in the answer.)
$d = 1$-dimensional
, which psychologically leaves the1
separated fromdimensional
. How about$d = \text{$1$-dimensional}$
. It'll look the same, but you'll feel better about it. ;) You can also just write it out:$d$ is $1$-dimensional
.$d=1$ where $d$ is the number of dimensions
[... and thus we have a1-dimensional
... (motion or something)] orIf we name $d$ the number of dimensions we have...
(Just realized that used my Greek approach in this second sentence... Usually in English scientific/tutoring formal texts "we don't use 'we' ")amsmath
provides the command\nobreakdash
. See p.14 of theamsmath
user guide (texdoc amsmath
).$d=1$-dimensional
isn't grammatical to begin with, and that reflects itself in your typesetting difficulties. (Also not that the first two comments misinterpreted your intent, which suggests that your notation isn't intuitive.) An equation is grammatically a sentence, which can't modify "dimensional". I would recommend "Within this section, $d=1$."