10

Following this question, I'm having problems when using the accepted answer on subscripts.

\[ 
A_  {z {_{y}^{x}} {_{x}^{y}} } \qquad
    {z {_{y}^{x}} {_{x}^{y}} }
\]

I don't know why, when in a subscript, the alignement/centering messes up.

I've also tried other options. I'll comment them a bit.

  • \atop , \genfrac and \above
\[
A_  {z {x \atop y} {y \atop x} } \qquad
    {z {x \atop y} {y \atop x} }
\]
\[ 
A_  {z {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{2}{x}{y}} {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{2}{y}{x}} } \qquad
    {z {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{2}{x}{y}} {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{2}{y}{x}} }
\]
\[
A_  {z {x \above 0pt y} {y \above 0pt x} } \qquad
    {z {x \above 0pt y} {y \above 0pt x} }
\]

They seem to render exactly the same. They have too much blank space.

  • \stackanchor from "stackengine" package
\stackMath
\[
A_  {z {\stackanchor{x}{y}} {\stackanchor{y}{x}} } \qquad
    {z {\stackanchor{x}{y}} {\stackanchor{y}{x}} }
\]

In both cases, it's misaligned. In the subscript, it's not the right size,

  • \overset from "mathtools" package and \stackrel
\[
A_  {z {\overset{x}{y}} {\overset{y}{x}} } \qquad
    {z {\overset{x}{y}} {\overset{y}{x}} }
\]
\[
A_  {z {\stackrel{x}{y}} {\stackrel{y}{x}} } \qquad
    {z {\stackrel{x}{y}} {\stackrel{y}{x}} }
\]

They seem to render exactly the same. In both cases, not centered, neither the correct size.

By "aligned" I mean "$xy$ alignment", so "misaligned" refers to anything else. There's no need that it renders strictly perfect aligned, centered or sized: something close will do.

Desired output:

enter image description here

2
  • do you want something like this? [ A_{z_{y^{x}}^{x^{y}}} \qquad z_{y^{x}}^{x^{y}} ] Sep 24 at 1:01
  • @EdsonMarcon, thanks, but no. I added an image to clarify.
    – SomeUser
    Sep 24 at 3:52
9

Do you want to stack the objects? In this case a version of \atop can do it (using \genfrac, of course). The trick is to force \textstyle when the object is found in \displaystyle, otherwise the standard action is good.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}

\makeatletter
\newcommand{\stk}[2]{\mathinner{\!\mathpalette\stk@{{#1}{#2}}\!}}
\newcommand{\stk@}[2]{%
  \ifx#1\displaystyle
    \expandafter\@firstoftwo
  \else
    \expandafter\@secondoftwo
  \fi
  {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}}%
  {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}}%
  #2%
}
\makeatother

\begin{document}

\[
A_{z\stk{x}{y}\stk{y}{x}} \qquad
z\stk{x}{y}\stk{y}{x}\ne z_{xy}^{yx} \qquad
z\stk{aa}{b}\stk{b}{aa}
\]

\end{document}

enter image description here

1
  • Thank you for your answer. This will do.
    – SomeUser
    Sep 24 at 16:18
9

Something like this? (Observe: no need for \overset, \stackanchor, \atop, etc.)

enter image description here

\documentclass{article}
\newcommand\complicatedz{z_{yx}^{xy}}
\begin{document}
\[
\complicatedz \quad A_{\complicatedz} \quad A_{\complicatedz}^{}
\]
\end{document} 

The two A_{...} terms differ, very slightly, in the vertical positioning of the subscript term -- which I've called, not very imaginatively, \zcomplicated.

1
  • Thanks for your answer! I can't believe I haven't thought of such simple approach. It renders perfectly for this cases. However, I apologize for not being clear enough on my purposes: both _x^y and _y^x are different objects. Therefore, I could use something like egreg's third example or having a z in between the x, y.
    – SomeUser
    Sep 24 at 16:16

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.