When you've got \left( and \right) or \left\{ and \right\}, with the respective left- and right-hand features placed either side of a line break in an aligned equation, is there any way to prevent this arrangement from yielding errors? Or is it preferable just to have small brackets/braces?
"Jack" <nomailth...@hotmail.com> writes:
> When you've got \left( and \right) or \left\{ and \right\}, with the > respective left- and right-hand features placed either side of a line break > in an aligned equation, is there any way to prevent this arrangement from > yielding errors? Or is it preferable just to have small brackets/braces?
basically:
\left( <stuff> \right. \\
\left. <stuff> \right)
the "." means "no delimiter here, thanks.
this doesn't carry the size of the first line forward, but it's better
than nothing (imo)
-- Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
sorry about all this posting. i'll go back to sleep in a bit.
Robin Fairbairns <r...@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>"Jack" <nomailth...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> When you've got \left( and \right) or \left\{ and \right\}, with the >> respective left- and right-hand features placed either side of a line break >> in an aligned equation, is there any way to prevent this arrangement from >> yielding errors? Or is it preferable just to have small brackets/braces?
>this doesn't carry the size of the first line forward, but it's better
>than nothing (imo)
Of course (as you know but Jack probably doesn't) the (vertical) "size of the first line" can be carried forward (and the vertical size of the next line carried backward) by using \vphantom:
\left( <stuff_1> \vphantom{<stuff_2>} right .\\
\left. \vphantom{<stuff_1>} <stuff_2> left)
>>> When you've got \left( and \right) or \left\{ and \right\}, with the
>>> respective left- and right-hand features placed either side of a
>>> line break in an aligned equation, is there any way to prevent this
>>> arrangement from yielding errors? Or is it preferable just to have
>>> small brackets/braces?
perhaps i should stick that info in the faq. then i wouldn't have to
remember it. of course, no-one (who needs to) reads the faq, anyway, so
it's a bit silly to keep working on it. but it gives reason to my
life, in a small way.
-- Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
sorry about all this posting. i'll go back to sleep in a bit.
Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> perhaps i should stick that info in the faq. then i wouldn't have to
> remember it. of course, no-one (who needs to) reads the faq, anyway, so
> it's a bit silly to keep working on it. but it gives reason to my
> life, in a small way.
Yes please. I never knew this and just thought, what a shame I'm bound
to forget before ever needing it. And, whatever you say, I do refer to
FAQ when I've forgotten how to do stuff or never knew in the first
place.
>>>> When you've got \left( and \right) or \left\{ and \right\}, with the
>>>> respective left- and right-hand features placed either side of a
>>>> line break in an aligned equation, is there any way to prevent this
>>>> arrangement from yielding errors? Or is it preferable just to have
>>>> small brackets/braces?
> perhaps i should stick that info in the faq. then i wouldn't have to
> remember it. of course, no-one (who needs to) reads the faq, anyway, so
> it's a bit silly to keep working on it. but it gives reason to my
> life, in a small way.
> -- > Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
> sorry about all this posting. i'll go back to sleep in a bit.
i usually quote http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq (on the grounds that it's
easier to type ... it's a server redirect and ends up on something like
the above).
note that the appearance of the faq (on the web) is largely a product of
the 90s. i tinker with it (the appearance) from time to time, but have
never really got my act together for making it look "moddun".
maybe that will all change when i retire. there's only so many hours
you can spend digging the garden and tidying the house (the latter is my
sole responsibility since my wife's rather visually disabled).
-- Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
sorry about all this posting. i'll go back to sleep in a bit.
Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> of course, no-one (who needs to) reads the faq, anyway, so
> it's a bit silly to keep working on it. but it gives reason to my
> life, in a small way.
That's not true, but those who read the FAQ (and other documentation) can often solve their problems by themselves and do not ask publicly ;)
Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> but have never really got my act together for making it look "moddun".
Plwase don't. The web was designed by a physicist to get work done
efficiently and has been under attack from the advertising idiot crowd
ever since. Most of what you see today is a dysfunctional broken shell
under a veneer of supposedly sleek looks.
N.B: "Modern" was the buzzword of the twenties to forties, "new time"
was one of Adolf Hitler's favourites and in my household both "new" and
modern" are four letter words (well, on average they are).
>> of course, no-one (who needs to) reads the faq, anyway, so
>> it's a bit silly to keep working on it. but it gives reason to my
>> life, in a small way.
> That's not true, but those who read the FAQ (and other documentation) can
> often solve their problems by themselves and do not ask publicly ;)
I agree! From time to time I find myself thinking: okay, I've done this before, how did I do it? Oh yes, I looked it up in the faq. Let's have another look for the solution there.
Axel Berger wrote:
> N.B: "Modern" was the buzzword of the twenties to forties, "new time"
> was one of Adolf Hitler's favourites and in my household both "new" and
> modern" are four letter words (well, on average they are).
Another honorary 4-letter word is "reforms" uttered by an administrator or politician, which far too often really means "changes" because some things are made a little better but some are made much worse.
Axel Berger <Axel.Ber...@Gmx.De> writes:
> Robin Fairbairns wrote:
>> but have never really got my act together for making it look "moddun".
> Plwase don't. The web was designed by a physicist to get work done
> efficiently and has been under attack from the advertising idiot crowd
> ever since. Most of what you see today is a dysfunctional broken shell
> under a veneer of supposedly sleek looks.
it really is (and always has been) a terribly clunky set of pages. the
server load is ghastly, too (not that cpu cycles cost that much,
nowadays).
anyway, there are things i really want to do, starting with fitting the
text to the size of screen.
as i regularly say, i don't believe it's a much used site (though i've
not collected any stats), and i only fiddle with it for my own
amusement. one thing that _doesn't_ amuse me is the pulsating
backgrounds and weird colours one so often sees on commercial sites. i
have troubles with colour at the best of times (to the extent that i
ignore quite a number of web sites on the basis of how difficult it is
to read them).
while i'll never be a physicist again (not since 1965...) i believe i
have the "correct" attitude to information provision ;-)
(a discussion about a recommended plumber, on a local news group,
attracted the fatuous remark "i hope her work looks better than her web
site"; her web site is simple an clear, to my way of looking at it.)
-- Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
sorry about all this posting. i'll go back to sleep in a bit.
