5

I have a difficulty in typing dividers in following math.enter image description here It is very much appreciated if someone can give me a solution. Please find below my trying, which does not fully show the desired output with the incorrent length of dividers (trying 1) and unwanted vertical spaces (trying 2).

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}

\begin{document}

First Trying:

$$\dfrac{\dfrac{\dfrac{\partial f( x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3})}{\partial x_{1}}
\bigg|_{ x_{1}= 0}}{\partial x_{2}} \bigg|_{ x_{2}= 0}}{\partial x_{3}}\
\bigg|_{ x_{3}= 0}=\dfrac{A}{B}$$

Second Trying:
$$
\left.\dfrac{
\left.\dfrac{
\left.\dfrac{\partial f(x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3})}{\partial x_{1}}\right|_{x_{1}=0}}
{\partial x_{2}}\right|_{x_{2}=0}}{\partial x_{3}}\right|_{x_{3}=0}=\dfrac{A}{B}
$$

\end{document}
0
7

A variant of an answer of mine. Feel free to change the name of the command. 😉

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}

\newsavebox{\akzoboxA}
\newsavebox{\akzoboxB}

\newcommand{\uglyeval}[2]{%
  \begingroup
  \sbox\akzoboxA{$#1$}%
  \sbox\akzoboxB{%
    $\left.\kern-2\nulldelimiterspace
     {\begin{gathered}\usebox\akzoboxA\end{gathered}}
    \right|_{#2}$%
  }%
  \raisebox{\dimexpr\ht\akzoboxA-\ht\akzoboxB}{\usebox\akzoboxB}%
  \endgroup
}

\begin{document}

\[
\uglyeval{\dfrac{
  \uglyeval{\dfrac{
    \uglyeval{\dfrac{\partial f(x_1,x_2,x_3)}{\partial x_1}}{x_1=0}
  }{\partial x_2}}{x_2=0}
}{\partial x_3}}{x_3=0}
=\frac{A}{B}
\]

\end{document}

enter image description here

5
  • I’m much more impressed by the fact that you managed to print a true emoji on TeX.SX. 😉
    – Gaussler
    Jul 25 at 17:07
  • Many thanks! It works flawlessly and is convenient to extend up to any level. Jul 25 at 18:57
  • Hi, egreg. there are very slight differences among the top posititions of the dividers. It is very small matter. But I wonder whether a simple modification can fix it? Jul 26 at 1:31
  • @RomalpaAkzo I noticed that, but I wouldn’t recommend such notation anyway.
    – egreg
    Jul 26 at 7:35
  • @egreg, manually adding \vspcace{-1.8pt} after \begin{gathered} gives me an acceptable quality. Honestly, I still feel a little uncomfortablity using such notation, but sofar find no better alternatives. Once again, many thanks for your help. Jul 26 at 8:17
2

How about this dirty hack woth blkarray?

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{blkarray}

\begin{document}

\[ \begin{blockarray}{r|l}
\dfrac{%
\left.\dfrac{
\left.\dfrac{\partial f(x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3})}{\partial x_{1}}\right|_{x_{1}=0}}
{\partial x_{2}}\right|_{x_{2}=0}}{\partial x_{3}}&_{\rule{0pt}{3ex}\mkern-10mu x_{3}=0} =\dfrac{A}{B}
\end{blockarray} \]

\end{document}

enter image description here

4
  • Thanks, Bernard. I find it almost perfect for \partial x_3 fraction. May I ask whether it is possible to do the same trick with \partial with x_2 too? Jul 25 at 10:52
  • It seems more complicated. You want to delete the blank space below the numerator?
    – Bernard
    Jul 25 at 10:55
  • Yes, I hope to delete all blanks which appear not necessary . Since I have numerous equations like that, even some of them have up to 7 levels or more, the blanks would affect significantly to the beauty of the equation. Thanks. Jul 25 at 11:04
  • I'll try to find a solution, but a first try seem to show problems in nesting blockarrays
    – Bernard
    Jul 25 at 11:24

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.