I would like to use the "&" symbol:

  1. to align multi-line equations as well

  2. to use it as an index to mark the placement while splitting an equation.

However, when I do so, I don't want the split equation to be in alignment with rest other equation lines. Is there a better way to do this? Thank you for your suggestions.

A minimal working example:

f(t_1,t_2|X_1,X_2) &=
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial{t_{1}}\partial{t_{2}}}\mathscr{L}\left[\Lambda_{01}(t_{1})e^{\beta^\top_{1}X_{1}}+\Lambda_{02}(t_{2})e^{\beta^\top_{2}X_{2}}\right] \\
&= \mathscr{L}^{\prime\prime}\left[\Lambda_{01}(t_1)e^{\beta_1^\top X_1}+\Lambda_{02}(t_2)e^{\beta_2^\top X_2}\right] \\
&= \frac{k+1}{k}\left(\nu_1\varphi_1{t_1}^{\varphi_1-1}e^{\beta_1^\top X_1}\right)\left(\nu_2\varphi_2{t_2}^{\varphi_2-1}e^{\beta_2^\top X_2}\right) \times\\ 
&\quad\left[\frac{k+\nu_1{t_1}^{\varphi_1}{e^{\beta_1^\top X_1}}+\nu_2{t_2}^{\varphi_2}{e^{\beta_2^\top X_2}}}{k}\right]^{-(k+2)}
  • Hi Balakumar and welcome to TeX.sx. Not an answer but interesting nonetheless: Why not to use eqnarray and mathmode. – clemens Aug 25 '12 at 19:45
  • At least need a \begin{document} to be a MWE – Fran Aug 25 '12 at 19:58
  • 2
    Would it be possible to provide an image of the existing and desired output? That would make understanding the problem much more clear. – Werner Aug 25 '12 at 20:11

I'm not sure if I fully understand your objectives. At any rate, instead of using both an eqnarray* and a split environments, it's better to use just an align* environment.

When splitting a long expression across two (or more) lines, it's customary (but not an absolute requirement) to place the operator of consequence (here: \times) on the continuation line. And, when using | to denote conditioning on some events or variables, it's a good idea to use the \mid command to gain some well-chosen horizontal spacing around this operator. I'd also recommend giving special treatment to "e" as the base of the natural exponential function, say by declaring it as a math operator -- as is done in the modified form of your MWE.

\DeclareMathOperator{\e}{e} % upright-roman font, thin space ahead of "e"
f(t_1,t_2\mid X_1,X_2) &=
\mathcal{L}\left[\Lambda_{01}(t_1) \e^{\beta_1^\top \!  X_1}+
                 \Lambda_{02}(t_2)\e^{\beta_2^\top \! X_2}\right] \\
&= \mathcal{L}^{\prime\prime}
\left[ \Lambda_{01}(t_1) \e^{\beta_1^\top \!  X_1}+
       \Lambda_{02}(t_2) \e^{\beta_2^\top \!  X_2}\right] \\
&= \frac{k+1}{k}
\left(\nu_1\varphi_1{t_1}^{\varphi_1-1}\e^{\beta_1^\top \!  X_1}\right)
\left(\nu_2\varphi_2{t_2}^{\varphi_2-1}\e^{\beta_2^\top \!  X_2}\right) \\ 
&\qquad\quad \times
\left[ \frac{k+\nu_1{t_1}^{\varphi_1}{\e^{\beta_1^\top \!  X_1}}
              +\nu_2{t_2}^{\varphi_2}{\e^{\beta_2^\top \!  X_2}}}{k} 

enter image description here


Just an addition to Mico's answer. You can also indicate the structure sacrificing the readability depending on the importance.

\DeclareMathOperator{\e}{e} % upright-roman font, thin space ahead of "e"
f(t_1,t_2\mid X_1,X_2) 
&= \frac{\partial^2}{\partial{t_1}\partial{t_2}} 
     \e^{\beta_i^\top \!  X_i}}}\right] \\
&= \,\ \qquad\mathcal{L}^{\prime\prime}\left[{\displaystyle
     \sum_{k=1}^2{\Lambda_{0i}(t_i) \e^{\beta_i^\top \!  X_i}}}\right] \\
&= \left(\frac{k+1}{k}\prod_{k=1}^2{\nu_i\varphi_i{t_i}^{\varphi_i-1}
     \e^{\beta_i^\top \!  X_i}} \right)
\left[ 1+\frac{{\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^2{\nu_i{t_i}^{\varphi_i}
     {\e^{\beta_i^\top \!  X_i}}}}}{k} 

enter image description here

  • Pff, I forgot to change the index k to i under the sum and the product symbols. – percusse Aug 26 '12 at 22:01
  • Nice touch to indent the second line, by the amount of \,\ \qquad. – Mico Aug 27 '12 at 13:17
  • @Mico Thanks. I have suffered too much from mathematician supervisors. – percusse Aug 27 '12 at 20:15

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.