# Lengthy subscript and commas formatting nicely [closed]

How do I rewrite this equation nicely in LaTeX?

$d \leftarrow \min\{ \min_{\omega \in \Omega} {u^\omega_{c',i^\omega_{c',t'}}}, r_{c',t'}\}.$


There are at least two problems I see:

1. The two layered subscript with the ' goes too far "down" in the first term and
2. There is a space between the c' and the comma under r, ideally the comma should be right below the '
• Is so difficult to provide complete small document with your equation instead of equation fragment? Please extend it to MWE. – Zarko Mar 23 at 12:00
• @Zarko added image. – bissi Mar 23 at 12:25
• image is in this simple case not needed, we need complete MWE (Minimal Working Example, a small complete document beginning with \begin{document} and end with \end{document}. Why we should do write this from scratch, if you already have it? Now you already already have answer with MWE , so my coment please consider in your future question. – Zarko Mar 23 at 15:01

I propose one of these this hacks with \smash and some negative \mkern or \mathrlap (defined by mathtools):

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{mathtools}

\begin{document}

$d \leftarrow \min\bigl\{ \min_{\omega \in \Omega} {u^\omega_{c'\mkern-5mu,i_{\smash{c'\mkern-5mu,t'}}^{^{\omega}}}}, r_{c'\mkern-5mu,t'}\bigr\}.$

$d \leftarrow \min\bigl\{ \min_{\omega \in \Omega} {u^\omega_{c\mathrlap{'},i_{\smash{c\mathrlap{'},t'}}^{^{\omega}}}}, r_{c'\mkern-5mu,t'}\bigr\}.$

\end{document}


• is there a more general way than the mkern? Also I am getting the same display with and without smash.... – bissi Mar 23 at 15:25
• What do you mean exactly with ‘more general’? More automatic? As to \smash, I used it because without it, the exponent (ω) was slightly raised. – Bernard Mar 23 at 15:31
• Meaning without the -5mu, where the number is decided automatically. – bissi Mar 23 at 16:30
• I've posted a more ‘automatic’ solution, using \mathrlap`. This being said, the kerning won't change; since it will always be used for a prime symbol, and I think the first solution is slighly better. B.t.w., I had forgotten one negative kerning (corrected). – Bernard Mar 23 at 16:47
• I've marked it as correct. But why do you think the first solution is better? Both solutions look the same to me visually. – bissi Mar 23 at 18:34