# Tag Info

17

Some suggestions and observations (some already made by @KersouMan): Don't provide all-blank lines in a display math environment Write \pm rather than +/- Encase the exponent terms in curly braces, i.e., write z^{-19} rather than z^-19 Since the numerator and denominator contain 17 and 18 separate additive terms, respectively, using conventional \frac ...

16

Add \left( and \right., but using equation and aligned: \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \begin{document} \left( \begin{aligned} \frac{dS_d}{dt}&= A + \lambda_dR_d + \sigma_d(1-\gamma_d)E_d -\beta_dS_dI_d- (m_d+k_d+c_d)S_d \0.5ex] \frac{dE_d}{dt}&= \beta_dS_dI_d -(m_d+\sigma_d+c_d)E_d \\[0.5ex] \frac{dI_d}{dt}&= \... 13 The systeme package allows you to do this. The command \sysdelim.. is used here to remove the braces that are placed by default. \documentclass{article} \usepackage{systeme} \begin{document} \sysdelim..\systeme{4x+7=7x+2,7=3x+2,5=3x,\frac{5}{3}=x } \end{document} 13 You wrote, I've managed to get this using the tabular environment, but it's obviously not the right way to do this. You were actually quite close! The main change I'd recommend you make is switching from a tabular environment to an array environment. The following screenshot shows the effect of this change. The third "take" involves applying further ... 13 If I change \usepackage{times} into \usepackage{mathptmx} in your code and also the equation into \frac{ \sum_{ij}\binom{n_{ij}}{2}-\bigl[\sum_{i}\binom{a_{i}}{2} \sum_{j}\binom{b_{j}}{2}\bigr]\big/\binom{n}{2} }{ \frac{1}{2}\bigl[\sum_{i}\binom{a_{i}}{2}+\sum_{j}\binom{b_{j}}{2}\bigr]- \bigl[\sum_{i}\binom{a_{i}}{2} \sum_{j}\binom{a_{... 13 Here's a possible implementation; the delimiters can be changed. \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath,multicol} \usepackage{xparse} \ExplSyntaxOn \NewDocumentCommand{\constraints}{omO{x}} { \IfValueTF{#1}{\begin{multicols}{#1}\centering}{\begin{center}} \egreg_costraints:nn { #2 } { #3 } \IfValueTF{#1}{\end{multicols}}{\end{center}} } \... 13 With the release of LaTeX2ε in June 1994,* the commands \bf \it \sl \rm have been deprecated. The LaTeX kernel doesn't define them; however, document classes may define them (and indeed, the standard classes do, for backward compatibility reasons). The fact that \bf seems to work in your document is not a reason for using it. Besides, the pre-1994 ... 12 A simple \uparrow can be placed using \underset{\uparrow}{<stuff>}. If you're adding wide content, you may want to consider stacking them (using \substack - a small array structure) and using \mathclap (from mathtools). \documentclass{article} \usepackage{mathtools} \begin{document} \[ x_1(n) = (1, 2, 3) = (\underset{\uparrow}{1}, 2, 3) ... 12 with use of the nccmath package: \documentclass{article} \usepackage{nccmath} \begin{document} \medmath{ % <--- reduce equation size for about 20 % \frac{1}{\psi_{m}} =\frac{1}{\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n-1}c_{k}\exp\Bigl(\mfrac{-2\pi imk}{n}\Bigr)} =\frac{1}{\langle V_{m},c \rangle+i\langle U_{m},c\rangle} =\frac{\langle V_{m},c \... 12 You can automate the job by exporting the Excel spreadsheet to a comma delimited file (for example subscripts.csv) and reading your data with the readarray package. MWE Assuming that the content of subscripts.csv is: 1,2 1,3 2,39 7,5 26,5 The following code: \documentclass{article} \usepackage{readarray} \usepackage{forloop} \newcommand\constraint[2]{x_{#... 12 Use Excel's CONCAT function. It's probably easiest to do this in Excel, especially if it's a one-time thing. Excel has several text-manipulation functions, and I have often found it a very convenient way to generate several similar lines of text or code. CONCAT(text1,text2,...) concatenates a bunch of text and data values into one text output. If columns ... 12 First, the reason why your code does not compile is that you cannot have an equation environment inside a table, which is not allowed. You could put each equation inside the table as inline mathematics using $$...$$ and you can force the equations to be in display mode, as they would be inside $$...$$, by using \displaystyle $$...$$. $$...$$ 11 Equalizing radicals is something of a black art. The difference is due to the right hand side having parentheses. We can cope with this by adding \mathstrut in the left hand side denominator. But this makes TeX choose the next size for the radical. Using \smash[b]{...} for the denominator doesn't help. The problem is that \tfrac imposes \textstyle, which ... 11 The common approach here is to use a \vphantom of the larger object, or \smash the larger next to a \vphantom of the smaller: \documentclass{article} \begin{document} T_a T_b vs T_a T_{\dot{b}} vs T_{\vphantom{\dot{b}}a} T_{\dot{b}} vs T_a T_{\vphantom{a}\smash{\dot{b}}} \end{document} 11 This may be what you are after: \documentclass{article} \usepackage[leqno]{amsmath} \usepackage{amssymb} \DeclareMathOperator{\imp}{\rightarrow} \begin{document} $$\forall p(p\imp\Diamond Kp)\tag{KP}$$ \end{document} 11 I could understand a desire to avoid the hole, but your readers would have a hard time in interpreting the expression if the exponent is completely above \times. I'd possibly use (3) or (4), but would prefer (5), removing the \times altogether, or better yet (6). Notice the \! in the exponent to avoid the other hole. \documentclass{article} \usepackage{... 10 \text is when the subscript is textual. You should also prefer \textcolor and brace the whole \underbrace construct. \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{xcolor} \begin{document} {% make the \underbrace an ordinary atom \underbrace{\textcolor{red}{I_j (x)} \ast \Delta_j(x,t_l,\textcolor{red}{p})}% _{I_j(x)(x-... 10 I suggest that you employ a split environment inside the equation environment, split the math material across three lines, and use the = symbols as the alignment points. For extra legibility, I would also replace \exp(\frac{-2\pi imk}{n}) with \exp(-2\pi imk/n), i.e., use inline-fraction notation in the denominator term of the first fraction expression. \... 10 Some comments about your code: First and foremost, get rid of all blank lines in the math environments. I don't think that it is correct, typographically speaking, to use \cdots as the typographic ellipsis in all places in the matrices. In rows 1, 2, and 4, it should be \dots (or \ldots). In row 3, three of the four \cdots instructions really ought to be \... 10 A solution using the cases environment: \documentclass[]{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \begin{document} $$\begin{cases} k_{i\omega}/k_{p\omega}=2\pi\times 10\\ \left\lvert\frac{k_{p\omega}s+k_{i\omega}}{s}\cdot\frac{1}{Ts+1}\right\rvert_{S=\mathrm{j}\cdot2\pi}=1 \end{cases}\,.$$ \end{document} 10 A solution using array (no packages needed): \documentclass[]{article} \begin{document} $$\left\{\begin{array}{@{}l@{}} k_{i\omega}/k_{p\omega}=2\pi\times 10\\ \left| \frac{k_{p\omega}s+k_{i\omega}}{s}\cdot\frac{1}{Ts+1} \right|_{S=\mathrm{j}\cdot2\pi}=1 \end{array}\right.\,.$$ \end{document} 10 Much of the horizontal space is taken by the long square roots. Always presume that your audience is able to read, so you can use an abbreviation. \documentclass{beamer} \usepackage{mathtools} \begin{document} \begin{frame} \begin{align} & (\lambda_1-2n+l+4)(\lambda_1-n-l+2)\leq l(n-l) \notag \\ \implies\quad & \lambda_1^2+\lambda_1(6-3n)+(2n^2-... 10 Using, for example, the enviroment align* instead of the enviroment split, you could to obtain the same output of your image. EDIT after the comment of @barbarabeeton (see below) for the use of \colon instead of :. \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \begin{document} \begin{align*} a_{1,1}& = d_{1},&\\ a_{k,k-1}&= \ell_{k-... 9 The non-starred version provides a numbered equation, which you can easily refer to with \label and \ref. The starred version does not provide the equation number, while keeping the same format, and has an equivalent in \[ .... \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \begin{document} The non-starred version provides a numbered equation, which you ...

8


8


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible