0

When I use \substack together with \max, I get the limits UNDER the operator, which is what I want.

However, when I use \substack with \operatorname{argmax}, the limits are subscripts, which is not what I want.

Also, when I use \substack with \max inside of

\begin{cases}
...
\end{cases}

the limits are subscripts.

Is there a way to make the limits be UNDER \operatorname{argmax} inside of a "cases" environment?

My code (with undesirable behavior):

\[
\text{where } \pd{P[r][c]}{A[i][j]} =
\begin{cases}
1 & i,j = \max_{\substack{1 \le i' \le 3 \\ 1 \le j' \le 3} } A[(r-1)\times 2+i'][(c- 
1)\times 2+j']\\[30pt]
0 & \text{ else }
\end{cases}
\]

Code that does put limits UNDER the operator:

\[
P[r][c] = \max_{ \substack{1 \le i \le 3 \\ 1 \le j \le 3} } A[(r-1)\times 
2+i][(c-1)\times 2+j]
\]
4
  • What if you use \operatorname{argmax} \limits ...?
    – Tolaso
    Mar 15, 2020 at 19:02
  • 1
    I tried that, but I didn't know about the * that I needed, as you described in your answer below. Thanks!
    – Joe
    Mar 15, 2020 at 19:37
  • You’re welcome ..
    – Tolaso
    Mar 15, 2020 at 19:38
  • Load mathtools and use dcases, it runs the cells is display math style, normal cases use text style
    – daleif
    Mar 15, 2020 at 20:34

1 Answer 1

3

OK, a slight modification.

\operatorname*{argmax} \limits_{\substack{1 \le i' \le 3 \\ 1 \le j' \le 3}}

I think this solves your problem.

Note: \operatorname{} without the asterisk cannot accept the command \limits.

The command \limits should also fix your other problem.

Also, when I use \substack with \max inside of \begin{cases} \end{cases}, the limits are subscripts.

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.