2

I was trying to typeset the time derivative of \vec{r}_\alpha, and naively, I put it as an argument to \dot. This does not work: the arrow is not on r anymore. Here is a minimal example:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\[
\dot{\vec{r}_\alpha}
\]
\end{document}

Note that there is a better way to typeset it (and it works): \dot{\vec{r}}_\alpha. I am asking out of curiosity.

4
  • I'd use all sorts of "beautifiers" (\dot, \hat, etc.) only on the main symbol (in your case, "r") and not on the whole object (r_\alpha). Unless the \dot is e.g. absolute time derivative, or a similar operator that is to be applied on the whole term. Jan 25 '11 at 13:14
  • from physical view it is wrong to have the dot over r and alpha. It should only be over the r, the reason why your own solution is the only correct one.
    – user2478
    Jan 25 '11 at 13:44
  • @Herbert, I of course agree that the correct thing to do is \dot{\vec{r}}_\alpha. I was mostly asking because amsmath changes the output unexpectedly. Jan 25 '11 at 13:56
  • you are absolutely right, it should work ...
    – user2478
    Jan 25 '11 at 15:03
2

Have a look at the mattens package. I have written it to "overcome" these problems

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{mattens} % use [noformat] for non-bold symbols
\usepackage{bm}
\begin{document}
  $\aS[\Dot]{r}_\alpha$

  or some other examples where \TeX\ makes a real mess on its own

  $\bS[\Dot]{f}^i_j$
\end{document}
5
  • Hmm, again: Can you explain what you mean, please? If I replace amsmath with mattens, I get the same problems. Jan 25 '11 at 15:20
  • @Hendrik: See the example in updated post
    – Danie Els
    Jan 25 '11 at 15:44
  • sorry, which updated post? Jan 25 '11 at 16:17
  • @Bruno: He refers to the code in this answer. Jan 25 '11 at 17:14
  • @Hendrik: for some reason the edited post had not appeared yet when I posted my comment. @Danie. Thanks: although your answer does not solve my question of putting a dot on \vec{r}_\alpha, it is probably the most useful for future users. Jan 25 '11 at 17:29
3

To me it looks like a bug: It works as expected if you omit \usepackage{amsmath}. However, it's somewhat strange what you're trying to do. You should not expect \dot{\vec{r}_\alpha} and \dot{\vec{r}}_\alpha to produce the same output; in the first case, the \dot should be centered over \vec{r}_\alpha, and over \vec{r} in the second case:

And I have no idea why you'd want to achieve the first version: If you want the \dot over everything, then maybe you should also put the \vec over everything, as in \dot{\vec{r_\alpha}}. This again works with amsmath.

As to why amsmath changes things (see comment below): amsmath contains a fix for producing nice double accents, and this seems to go wrong here. (Incidentally, you get almost the same unexpected behaviour if you use accents instead of amsmath.)

2
  • I agree with the various comments on the fact that no one should do that, but I was wondering why amsmath changes things. And yes, the outputs should be slightly different, but only moving the dot slightly. Jan 25 '11 at 13:58
  • @Bruno: See my update. Jan 25 '11 at 14:10

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.