Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Cite
45 views
Skip to first unread message
Jack
Jul 18, 2012, 8:03:04 AM7/18/12
to
How do I use the \cite{} command?
With thanks.
With thanks.
Mikko Kouhia
Jul 18, 2012, 1:44:36 PM7/18/12
to
On 2012-07-18, Jack <no1em...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How do I use the \cite{} command?
> With thanks.
Jack, you really had better to read a basic quide to LaTeX (or plain
> How do I use the \cite{} command?
> With thanks.
TeX, ConTeXt, or the thing you are using), as the questions you have
posted indicate that you are rather unfamiliar with the typesetting
system. I recommend you to have a look at "The Not So Short
Introduction to LaTeX 2e" (http://tobi.oetiker.ch/lshort/lshort.pdf ,
2.1 MB file), where you'll also find how \cite works on page 85 ---
albeit very briefly. There sure are a lot of other references, for
example LaTeX Wikibook (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX), but I have
not looked at those; can't tell about their quality. In the Wikibook,
you will find citation commands at
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Bibliography_Management .
But to answer the question, you need to have a bibliography in your
document, either you put at the end of your document
\begin{thebibliography}{N}
\bibitem{refname}
A. Author,
Title of the work.
Other bibliographic information as requested by your publisher
\bibitem{refname2}
...
\end{thebibliography}
where N is the maximum amount of references you are going to feed in
(LaTeX needs it for spacing) and refname is the label with which you are
going to call the citation in the document as \cite{refname}. With this
scheme you will have numerical citations.
The other possibility is to produce external files which contain the
bibliographic information in predefined format and to place them
automatically as a list of references. Look for example at the Wikibook
page and look for BibTeX.
Please, do have a look at a properly formulated beginners' guide to
LaTeX (TeX, ConTeXt or whichever you prefer) as that will save time for
you (written in a simple to understand format) and for others (no need
to rewrite things that are all around the Internet and books).
Jack
Jul 18, 2012, 9:27:58 PM7/18/12
to
"Mikko Kouhia" <kou-...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:slrnk0dtg4.1...@aldebaran.local...
> \begin{thebibliography}{N}
>
> \bibitem{refname}
> A. Author,
> Title of the work.
> Other bibliographic information as requested by your publisher
>
> \bibitem{refname2}
> ...
>
> \end{thebibliography}
>
> where N is the maximum amount of references you are going to feed in
> (LaTeX needs it for spacing) and refname is the label with which you are
> going to call the citation in the document as \cite{refname}. With this
> scheme you will have numerical citations.
>
> The other possibility is to produce external files which contain the
> bibliographic information in predefined format and to place them
> automatically as a list of references. Look for example at the Wikibook
> page and look for BibTeX.
>
>
> Please, do have a look at a properly formulated beginners' guide to
> LaTeX (TeX, ConTeXt or whichever you prefer) as that will save time for
> you (written in a simple to understand format) and for others (no need
> to rewrite things that are all around the Internet and books).
>
Thanks -- actually it worked without my having to look at that guide and I
>
> \bibitem{refname}
> A. Author,
> Title of the work.
> Other bibliographic information as requested by your publisher
>
> \bibitem{refname2}
> ...
>
> \end{thebibliography}
>
> where N is the maximum amount of references you are going to feed in
> (LaTeX needs it for spacing) and refname is the label with which you are
> going to call the citation in the document as \cite{refname}. With this
> scheme you will have numerical citations.
>
> The other possibility is to produce external files which contain the
> bibliographic information in predefined format and to place them
> automatically as a list of references. Look for example at the Wikibook
> page and look for BibTeX.
>
>
> Please, do have a look at a properly formulated beginners' guide to
> LaTeX (TeX, ConTeXt or whichever you prefer) as that will save time for
> you (written in a simple to understand format) and for others (no need
> to rewrite things that are all around the Internet and books).
>
think that's just about the last Tex operation, other than the thing I am
trying to sort out in the other thread, I'll need to do (for now, at least).
One thing -- I rather expected the numbers in square brackets, that are
yielded by the \cite command, to be superscripted, but they're not. Is that
as it should be?
Mikko Kouhia
Jul 18, 2012, 11:01:25 PM7/18/12
to
On 2012-07-19, Jack <no1em...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...] One thing -- I rather expected the numbers in square brackets,
> [...] One thing -- I rather expected the numbers in square brackets,
> that are yielded by the \cite command, to be superscripted, but
> they're not. Is that as it should be?
Yes, it is.
> they're not. Is that as it should be?
Jack
Jul 19, 2012, 7:18:17 AM7/19/12
to
Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more like the
headings I get when I use
\noindent\textbf{} ?
With thanks.
"Jack" <no1em...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:woJNr.12161$j37...@fx01.am4...
headings I get when I use
\noindent\textbf{} ?
With thanks.
"Jack" <no1em...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:woJNr.12161$j37...@fx01.am4...
Lars Madsen
Jul 19, 2012, 7:20:09 AM7/19/12
to
Jack wrote, On 2012-07-19 13:18:
> Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more like the
> headings I get when I use
> \noindent\textbf{} ?
> With thanks.
>
if you are writing this for a journal, then DO NOT CHANGE THE LAYOUT, it
> Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more like the
> headings I get when I use
> \noindent\textbf{} ?
> With thanks.
>
is a waste of your time and the journals time (as they will have to redo
your changes)
/daleif (remove RTFSIGNATURE from email address)
Memoir and mh bundle maintainer
LaTeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
LaTeX book: http://math.au.dk/videnudveksling/latex/bog/ (in Danish)
Remember to post minimal examples, see URL below
http://www.minimalbeispiel.de/mini-en.html
Lee Rudolph
Jul 19, 2012, 7:27:01 AM7/19/12
to
Lars Madsen <dal...@RTFMSIGNATUREimf.au.dk> writes:
>Jack wrote, On 2012-07-19 13:18:
>> Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more like the
>> headings I get when I use
>> \noindent\textbf{} ?
>> With thanks.
>>
>
>if you are writing this for a journal, then DO NOT CHANGE THE LAYOUT, it
>is a waste of your time and the journals time (as they will have to redo
>your changes)
Mind you, this is a journal from the web page of which
>Jack wrote, On 2012-07-19 13:18:
>> Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more like the
>> headings I get when I use
>> \noindent\textbf{} ?
>> With thanks.
>>
>
>if you are writing this for a journal, then DO NOT CHANGE THE LAYOUT, it
>is a waste of your time and the journals time (as they will have to redo
>your changes)
Jack says he cut and pasted the broken example of the
use of \label, so he may *have* to change some aspects
of the layout as (mis)prescribed there (if he reported
accurately).
Lee Rudolph
Jack
Jul 19, 2012, 8:52:10 AM7/19/12
to
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ju8qu5$429$1...@reader1.panix.com...
http://journals.aulonapress.com/index.php/ajm/information/authors
Jack
Jul 19, 2012, 9:00:08 AM7/19/12
to
"Lars Madsen" <dal...@RTFMSIGNATUREimf.au.dk> wrote in message
news:5007ed69$0$289$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> Jack wrote, On 2012-07-19 13:18:
>> Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more like the
>> headings I get when I use
>> \noindent\textbf{} ?
>> With thanks.
>>
>
> if you are writing this for a journal, then DO NOT CHANGE THE LAYOUT, it
> is a waste of your time and the journals time (as they will have to redo
> your changes)
>
It looks wildly unconformal, especially considering I follow it with
>> Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more like the
>> headings I get when I use
>> \noindent\textbf{} ?
>> With thanks.
>>
>
> if you are writing this for a journal, then DO NOT CHANGE THE LAYOUT, it
> is a waste of your time and the journals time (as they will have to redo
> your changes)
>
\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgements}
Dan
Jul 19, 2012, 2:05:01 PM7/19/12
to
On Jul 19, 6:18 am, "Jack" <no1email...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more like the
> headings I get when I use
> \noindent\textbf{} ?
> With thanks.
The instruction page you gave us later in this thread explicitly says
> Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more like the
> headings I get when I use
> \noindent\textbf{} ?
> With thanks.
not
to do that. The bibliography is designed to produce a section heading.
That is, it is designed to match (more or less) the results of
\section{}.
If you are placing section headings with
\noindent\textbf{1. Title of section}
stop doing that and use
\section{Title of section}
LaTeX will generate the numbers for you and the document class
amsart will provide the correct formatting (fonts) for the title
automatically.
This is covered in almost any beginning LateX user's guide such
as lshort.pdf.
In a later post you say
> It looks wildly unconformal, especially considering I follow it with
>\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgements}
wherever you put them, if they are to be considered a section,
use
\section*{Acknowledgements}
I normally have a summary last section and end it with
\paragraph*{Acknowledgements}
or sometimes
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
if it is extensive.
Dan
Jack
Jul 20, 2012, 8:05:21 AM7/20/12
to
"Dan" <luec...@uark.edu> wrote in message
news:90f10ee9-0812-4c54...@6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 19, 6:18 am, "Jack" <no1email...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more like
> > the
> > headings I get when I use
> > \noindent\textbf{} ?
> > With thanks.
> The instruction page you gave us later in this thread explicitly says not
> to do that.
It said to use defaults but I wasn't sure how to interpret this, because one
> > Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more like
> > the
> > headings I get when I use
> > \noindent\textbf{} ?
> > With thanks.
> The instruction page you gave us later in this thread explicitly says not
> to do that.
always needs to use commands of one kind or another. I thought it was
talking about the page margins.
> The bibliography is designed to produce a section heading. That is, it is
> designed to match (more or less)
> the results of
\section{}.
If you are placing section headings with
> \noindent\textbf{1. Title of section}
stop doing that and use
\section{Title of section}
> LaTeX will generate the numbers for you and the document class amsart
> will provide the correct > formatting (fonts) for the title automatically.
1. Heading
1.1. Subheading
1.1.1 Sub-subheading
1.1.2 Sub-heading
etc.
1.2 Subheading
etc.
2. Heading
etc.
In the the category of sub-subheading, I include 'Definition', 'Remark',
'Corollary'.
How can I retain this?
With thanks.
Robin Fairbairns
Jul 22, 2012, 12:38:31 PM7/22/12
to
"Jack" <no1em...@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Dan" <luec...@uark.edu> wrote...
gives you". funny, i thought it was ovious.
>> The bibliography is designed to produce a section heading. That is, it is
>> designed to match (more or less)
>> the results of
> \section{}.
> If you are placing section headings with
>> \noindent\textbf{1. Title of section}
> stop doing that and use
> \section{Title of section}
>> LaTeX will generate the numbers for you and the document class amsart
>> will provide the correct > formatting (fonts) for the title automatically.
>
>
> My heirarchy follows the pattern:
> 1. Heading
> 1.1. Subheading
> 1.1.1 Sub-subheading
> 1.1.2 Sub-heading
> etc.
>
> 1.2 Subheading
> etc.
>
> 2. Heading
> etc.
>
> In the the category of sub-subheading, I include 'Definition',
> 'Remark', 'Corollary'.
i've never encountered such an arrangement, and (obviously) neither have
the people instructing you to use ams macros for the job: they just
won't do that. (i would suggest that this weird arrangement of melding
the mathematical structure with the structure of the textual discourse,
explains why none of us understood what was going on when you first
posted
> How can I retain this?
without re-writing the packages you've been told to use, i would guess
you can't. (i'm happy to be proved wrong, but i _really_ don't expect
to be.)
and of course, re-writing the package is likely to mean the paper is
rejected by the people who told you to use the package in the first place.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
sorry about all this posting. i'll go back to sleep in a bit.
> "Dan" <luec...@uark.edu> wrote...
> On Jul 19, 6:18 am, "Jack" <no1email...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more
>> > like the headings I get when I use \noindent\textbf{} ?
>
>> > Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more
>> > like the headings I get when I use \noindent\textbf{} ?
>
>> The instruction page you gave us later in this thread explicitly says not
>> to do that.
>
> It said to use defaults but I wasn't sure how to interpret this,
> because one always needs to use commands of one kind or another. I
> thought it was talking about the page margins.
"defaults" tends to mean "what the package (that we've told you to use)
>> to do that.
>
> It said to use defaults but I wasn't sure how to interpret this,
> because one always needs to use commands of one kind or another. I
> thought it was talking about the page margins.
gives you". funny, i thought it was ovious.
>> The bibliography is designed to produce a section heading. That is, it is
>> designed to match (more or less)
>> the results of
> \section{}.
> If you are placing section headings with
>> \noindent\textbf{1. Title of section}
> stop doing that and use
> \section{Title of section}
>> LaTeX will generate the numbers for you and the document class amsart
>> will provide the correct > formatting (fonts) for the title automatically.
>
>
> My heirarchy follows the pattern:
> 1. Heading
> 1.1. Subheading
> 1.1.1 Sub-subheading
> 1.1.2 Sub-heading
> etc.
>
> 1.2 Subheading
> etc.
>
> 2. Heading
> etc.
>
> In the the category of sub-subheading, I include 'Definition',
> 'Remark', 'Corollary'.
the people instructing you to use ams macros for the job: they just
won't do that. (i would suggest that this weird arrangement of melding
the mathematical structure with the structure of the textual discourse,
explains why none of us understood what was going on when you first
posted
> How can I retain this?
you can't. (i'm happy to be proved wrong, but i _really_ don't expect
to be.)
and of course, re-writing the package is likely to mean the paper is
rejected by the people who told you to use the package in the first place.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
sorry about all this posting. i'll go back to sleep in a bit.
Jack
Jul 24, 2012, 7:53:01 AM7/24/12
to
"Robin Fairbairns" <rf...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:qfmx2r3...@dev-rf10-linux.cl.cam.ac.uk...
> "Jack" <no1em...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> "Dan" <luec...@uark.edu> wrote...
>> On Jul 19, 6:18 am, "Jack" <no1email...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more
>>> > like the headings I get when I use \noindent\textbf{} ?
>>
>>> The instruction page you gave us later in this thread explicitly says
>>> not
>>> to do that.
>>
>> It said to use defaults but I wasn't sure how to interpret this,
>> because one always needs to use commands of one kind or another. I
>> thought it was talking about the page margins.
>
> "defaults" tends to mean "what the package (that we've told you to use)
> gives you". funny, i thought it was ovious.
Well, funnily enough, it doesn't *give* me anything, as such, other than the
>
>> "Dan" <luec...@uark.edu> wrote...
>> On Jul 19, 6:18 am, "Jack" <no1email...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more
>>> > like the headings I get when I use \noindent\textbf{} ?
>>
>>> The instruction page you gave us later in this thread explicitly says
>>> not
>>> to do that.
>>
>> It said to use defaults but I wasn't sure how to interpret this,
>> because one always needs to use commands of one kind or another. I
>> thought it was talking about the page margins.
>
> "defaults" tends to mean "what the package (that we've told you to use)
> gives you". funny, i thought it was ovious.
page layout. I have to write a command of some kind if I want a new heading.
journals. In fact, using the
section{}
subsection{}
sub-subsection{}
commands, I see it actuals gets precisely the results I need, as described
above.
Lee Rudolph
Jul 24, 2012, 8:30:43 AM7/24/12
to
"Jack" <no1em...@hotmail.com> writes:
...
But why would you study "well-known mathematics journals"
to decide how to format something for the Albanian Journal
of Mathematics?
\end{snark}
Lee Rudolph
...
>Well that's weird as I just got it from studying well-known mathematics
>journals.
\begin{snark}
>journals.
But why would you study "well-known mathematics journals"
to decide how to format something for the Albanian Journal
of Mathematics?
\end{snark}
Lee Rudolph
Robin Fairbairns
Jul 24, 2012, 10:00:57 AM7/24/12
to
"Jack" <no1em...@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Robin Fairbairns" <rf...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote...
that "gives".
>> i've never encountered such an arrangement, and (obviously) neither have
>> the people instructing you to use ams macros for the job: they just
>> won't do that. (i would suggest that this weird arrangement of melding
>> the mathematical structure with the structure of the textual discourse,
>> explains why none of us understood what was going on when you first
>> posted
>
> Well that's weird as I just got it from studying well-known mathematics
> journals.
interesting. i've not done that sort of thing since the early 1970s,
but the _practising_ mathematicians[*] in this thread might be
interested to know the names of the journals you are talking about.
[*] i haven't done significant maths in earnest since about 1971.
> "Robin Fairbairns" <rf...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote...
>> "Jack" <no1em...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> "defaults" tends to mean "what the package (that we've told you to use)
>> gives you". funny, i thought it was ovious.
>
> Well, funnily enough, it doesn't *give* me anything, as such, other than the
> page layout. I have to write a command of some kind if I want a new heading.
ho ho, very satirical. you know, as well as i do, what was meant by
>>
>> "defaults" tends to mean "what the package (that we've told you to use)
>> gives you". funny, i thought it was ovious.
>
> Well, funnily enough, it doesn't *give* me anything, as such, other than the
> page layout. I have to write a command of some kind if I want a new heading.
that "gives".
>> i've never encountered such an arrangement, and (obviously) neither have
>> the people instructing you to use ams macros for the job: they just
>> won't do that. (i would suggest that this weird arrangement of melding
>> the mathematical structure with the structure of the textual discourse,
>> explains why none of us understood what was going on when you first
>> posted
>
> Well that's weird as I just got it from studying well-known mathematics
> journals.
but the _practising_ mathematicians[*] in this thread might be
interested to know the names of the journals you are talking about.
[*] i haven't done significant maths in earnest since about 1971.
Jack
Jul 24, 2012, 10:17:53 AM7/24/12
to
news:qf8ve9t...@dev-rf10-linux.cl.cam.ac.uk...
defaults do is give me a page layout and various other stuff to do with
typesetting. If I want a heading, as I said, I need to put in a command.
Sorry but you and I are obviously speaking at cross-purposes. Maybe you are
tacitly saying that the command "\section{}", which you hadn't mentioned,
produces the defaults of font, text positioning etc, in which case this is
something I didn't know.
>
>>> i've never encountered such an arrangement, and (obviously) neither have
>>> the people instructing you to use ams macros for the job: they just
>>> won't do that. (i would suggest that this weird arrangement of melding
>>> the mathematical structure with the structure of the textual discourse,
>>> explains why none of us understood what was going on when you first
>>> posted
>>
>> Well that's weird as I just got it from studying well-known mathematics
>> journals.
>
> interesting. i've not done that sort of thing since the early 1970s,
> but the _practising_ mathematicians[*] in this thread might be
> interested to know the names of the journals you are talking about.
>
Journal of Number Theory was one of the ones I studied, but I am not sure
whether it had *exactly* the layout I referenced. It certainly wasn't far
off. Anyhow, they were all from the open shelves of the university library;
I did notice that some of the journals seemed to vary, quite liberally, the
way they organised their heirarchies of headings and numbers according to
the article. I can't see why mine should be so objectionable, especially
since it conforms what you get by using
\section{}
\subsection{} and
\sub-section{},
as I had already pointed out. So is it the numbering (of Remarks,
Corollaries and Definitions as sub-subheadings) that you find unsual?
> "Jack" <no1em...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> "Robin Fairbairns" <rf...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote...
>>> "Jack" <no1em...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> "defaults" tends to mean "what the package (that we've told you to use)
>>> gives you". funny, i thought it was ovious.
>>
>> Well, funnily enough, it doesn't *give* me anything, as such, other than
>> the
>> page layout. I have to write a command of some kind if I want a new
>> heading.
>
> ho ho, very satirical. you know, as well as i do, what was meant by
> that "gives".
I must be missing something in what you take to be a dash of humour. All the
>
>> "Robin Fairbairns" <rf...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote...
>>> "Jack" <no1em...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> "defaults" tends to mean "what the package (that we've told you to use)
>>> gives you". funny, i thought it was ovious.
>>
>> Well, funnily enough, it doesn't *give* me anything, as such, other than
>> the
>> page layout. I have to write a command of some kind if I want a new
>> heading.
>
> ho ho, very satirical. you know, as well as i do, what was meant by
> that "gives".
defaults do is give me a page layout and various other stuff to do with
typesetting. If I want a heading, as I said, I need to put in a command.
Sorry but you and I are obviously speaking at cross-purposes. Maybe you are
tacitly saying that the command "\section{}", which you hadn't mentioned,
produces the defaults of font, text positioning etc, in which case this is
something I didn't know.
>
>>> i've never encountered such an arrangement, and (obviously) neither have
>>> the people instructing you to use ams macros for the job: they just
>>> won't do that. (i would suggest that this weird arrangement of melding
>>> the mathematical structure with the structure of the textual discourse,
>>> explains why none of us understood what was going on when you first
>>> posted
>>
>> Well that's weird as I just got it from studying well-known mathematics
>> journals.
>
> interesting. i've not done that sort of thing since the early 1970s,
> but the _practising_ mathematicians[*] in this thread might be
> interested to know the names of the journals you are talking about.
>
whether it had *exactly* the layout I referenced. It certainly wasn't far
off. Anyhow, they were all from the open shelves of the university library;
I did notice that some of the journals seemed to vary, quite liberally, the
way they organised their heirarchies of headings and numbers according to
the article. I can't see why mine should be so objectionable, especially
since it conforms what you get by using
\section{}
\subsection{} and
\sub-section{},
as I had already pointed out. So is it the numbering (of Remarks,
Corollaries and Definitions as sub-subheadings) that you find unsual?
Peter Flynn
Jul 25, 2012, 4:42:50 PM7/25/12
to
On 20/07/12 13:05, Jack wrote:
> "Dan" <luec...@uark.edu> wrote in message
> news:90f10ee9-0812-4c54...@6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 19, 6:18 am, "Jack" <no1email...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more like
>>> the headings I get when I use \noindent\textbf{} ?
As others have pointed out, you shouldn't be doing that anyway: it just
> "Dan" <luec...@uark.edu> wrote in message
> news:90f10ee9-0812-4c54...@6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 19, 6:18 am, "Jack" <no1email...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is there any way I can get the heading 'REFERENCES' looking more like
>>> the headings I get when I use \noindent\textbf{} ?
makes your document more prone to error and harder to update.
Use the \section, \subsection, \subsubsection etc commands.
>> The bibliography is designed to produce a section heading. That is, it is
>> designed to match (more or less) the results of
>> \section{}.
>
> My heirarchy follows the pattern:
> 1. Heading
> 1.1. Subheading
> 1.1.1 Sub-subheading
> 1.1.2 Sub-heading
> etc.
>
> 1.2 Subheading
> etc.
>
> 2. Heading
> etc.
>
> In the the category of sub-subheading, I include 'Definition', 'Remark',
> 'Corollary'.
>
> How can I retain this?
You have to redefine the "thebibliography" environment to do this (there
> My heirarchy follows the pattern:
> 1. Heading
> 1.1. Subheading
> 1.1.1 Sub-subheading
> 1.1.2 Sub-heading
> etc.
>
> 1.2 Subheading
> etc.
>
> 2. Heading
> etc.
>
> In the the category of sub-subheading, I include 'Definition', 'Remark',
> 'Corollary'.
>
> How can I retain this?
is some hard-wired design in LaTeX's default document classes, I'm
afraid). Include the following in your preamble (between the
\documentclass line and the \begin{document} line):
\makeatletter
\newenvironment{thebibliography}[1]
{\subsection*{\refname}%
\@mkboth{\MakeUppercase\refname}{\MakeUppercase\refname}%
\list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
{\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep
\@openbib@code
\usecounter{enumiv}%
\let\p@enumiv\@empty
\renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
\sloppy
\clubpenalty4000
\@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
\widowpenalty4000%
\sfcode`\.\@m}
{\def\@noitemerr
{\@latex@warning{Empty `thebibliography' environment}}%
\endlist}
\makeatother
> One thing -- I rather expected the numbers in square brackets,
> that are yielded by the \cite command, to be superscripted, but they're
> not. Is that as it should be?
the packages designed for the purpose. I don't offhand remember which
one implements superscript citation marks, but someone else will...
///Peter
Peter Flynn
Jul 25, 2012, 4:49:35 PM7/25/12
to
On 24/07/12 15:17, Jack wrote:
[...]
thick) veil of sarcasm, which does duty for humour (or is it humour
which does duty for sarcasm, I can never remember).
> All the defaults do is give me a page layout and various other stuff
> to do with typesetting. If I want a heading, as I said, I need to put
> in a command. Sorry but you and I are obviously speaking at
> cross-purposes. Maybe you are tacitly saying that the command
> "\section{}", which you hadn't mentioned,
But which others had.
> produces the defaults of font, text positioning etc, in which case
> this is something I didn't know.
This is why the immediate reaction from most people was "you need to
read one of the beginners' guides to LaTeX)" -- you do actually need to
know this stuff, and I'm afraid that means a little reading and
learning. Not much: most of the simple commands can be mastered in about
30 mins, and getting the right command can save vast amounts of time.
\begin{plug}
http://latex.silmaril.ie/formattinginformation/
\end{plug}
///Peter
[...]
> I must be missing something in what you take to be a dash of humour.
>
This is Usenet. Followups are often overlaid with a thin (sometimes
>
thick) veil of sarcasm, which does duty for humour (or is it humour
which does duty for sarcasm, I can never remember).
> All the defaults do is give me a page layout and various other stuff
> to do with typesetting. If I want a heading, as I said, I need to put
> in a command. Sorry but you and I are obviously speaking at
> cross-purposes. Maybe you are tacitly saying that the command
> "\section{}", which you hadn't mentioned,
> produces the defaults of font, text positioning etc, in which case
> this is something I didn't know.
read one of the beginners' guides to LaTeX)" -- you do actually need to
know this stuff, and I'm afraid that means a little reading and
learning. Not much: most of the simple commands can be mastered in about
30 mins, and getting the right command can save vast amounts of time.
\begin{plug}
http://latex.silmaril.ie/formattinginformation/
\end{plug}
///Peter
0 new messages