strange footnote behaviour

[Matthias Beck]

Dear all,

I'm getting a strange pdf output (see attached) regarding a footnote. Other footnotes in my book seem to function well, so I'm a bit puzzled. If anyone has an idea what might be going on, I'd be happy to know.

Cheers,

matt

[Rob Beezer]

Dear Matt,

Just barely enough to go on with a single page of the PDF. Looking at source is
almost always necessary. Rarely do we ever complain that you have given us too
much information as part of an error report.

What sort of block ("environment") is this in? Almost definitely an oversight
that can be corrected easily. Don't panic.

Rob

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PreTeXt support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
> to pretext-suppo...@googlegroups.com <mailto:pretext-
> support+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/
> a3a3add5-d77b-4390-bec3-c88f70190899n%40googlegroups.com <https://
> groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/a3a3add5-d77b-4390-bec3-
> c88f70190899n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Matthias Beck]

Dear Rob,

Thanks for your reply. (It takes a lot more to make me panic. :)

Attached is the whole chapter output and below is some code. Let me know if you'd like to see more...

Thanks again,

matt

    <p>

      We cannot do something equivalent for the first term in <xref

      ref="cauchyriemlimit"/>,

      since now both <m>\D x</m> and <m>\D y</m> are involved,

      and both change as <m>\D z\to0</m>.

      Instead we apply the Mean-Value <xref ref="realmeanvalue"/> for

      real functions,<fn>

      We collect several theorems from calculus,

      such as the Mean-Value Theorem for real-valued functions,

      in the Appendix.

      </fn> to the real and imaginary parts <m>u(z)</m> and

      <m>v(z)</m> of <m>f(z)</m>.

      <xref ref="realmeanvalue"/>

      gives real numbers <m>0\lt a,b\lt 1</m> such that

      <md>

        <mrow>

        \frac{u(x_0+\D x, \, y_0+\D y)-u(x_0+\D x, \, y_0)}{\D y} \amp

        \ = \ u_y(x_0+\D x, \, y_0+a \, \D y)

        </mrow>

        <mrow>

        \frac{v(x_0+\D x, \, y_0+\D y)-v(x_0+\D x, \, y_0)}{\D y} \amp

        \ = \ v_y(x_0+\D x, \, y_0+b \, \D y) \,

        </mrow>

      </md>.

      Thus

      <md>

        <mrow>

          \amp \frac{f(z_0+\D x+ i \D y)-f(z_0+\D x)}{\D y} -

          f_y(z_0)

        </mrow>

        <mrow>

          \amp = \left( \frac{ u(x_0 + \D x, y_0 + \D y) - u(x_0

          + \D x, y_0) }{ \D y } - u_y(z_0) \right)  

        </mrow>

        <mrow>

          \amp \quad + i \left(

          \frac{ v(x_0 + \D x, y_0 + \D y) - v(x_0 + \D x, y_0) }{

          \D y } - v_y(z_0) \right)

        </mrow>

        <mrow xml:id="eq_laststepcauchyr" number="yes">

          \amp = \left(u_y(x_0+\D x, y_0+a \D y)-u_y(x_0,

          y_0)\right)

        </mrow>

        <mrow>

          \amp \quad + i\left(v_y(x_0+\D x, y_0+b \D y)-v_y(x_0,

          y_0)\right)

        </mrow>

      </md>.

      Because <m>u_y</m> and <m>v_y</m> are continuous at <m>(x_0,y_0)</m>,

      <md>

        <mrow>

          \lim_{ \D z \to 0 } u_y(x_0+\D x, \, y_0+a \, \D y) \amp \ = \

          u_y(x_0, \, y_0)

        </mrow>

        <mrow>

          \lim_{ \D z \to 0 } v_y(x_0+\D x, \, y_0+b \, \D y) \amp \ = \

          v_y(x_0, \, y_0) \,

        </mrow>

      </md>,

      and so <xref ref="eq_laststepcauchyr"/> goes to 0 as <m>\D z \to 0</m>,

      which we set out to prove.

    </p>

[David Austin]

I think Rob is probably asking to look at the PTX source, which is here. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pretext-suppo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/0bda57ea-dc67-4772-ba0a-7b93e68a866en%40googlegroups.com.

[Rob Beezer]

On 8/14/25 11:43, David Austin wrote:
> I think Rob is probably asking to look at the PTX source, which is here.

> <https://github.com/davidaustinm/fcca/blob/
> e9e6f2cc2100eca8de28151d8a1b422298b6a7cd/source/sec_Cauchy-Riemann.ptx#L299>

Thank-you, David. A "detached" #proof (not inside a #theorem). I'll go from there.

> pretext-support/ <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/>
> > a3a3add5-d77b-4390-bec3-c88f70190899n%40googlegroups.com
> <http://40googlegroups.com> <https://
> > groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/a3a3add5-d77b-4390-bec3-
> <http://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/a3a3add5-d77b-4390-bec3->
> > c88f70190899n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> <http://40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PreTeXt support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email to pretext-suppo...@googlegroups.com <mailto:pretext-
> support+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-

> support/0bda57ea-dc67-4772-ba0a-7b93e68a866en%40googlegroups.com <https://
> groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/0bda57ea-dc67-4772-
> ba0a-7b93e68a866en%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PreTeXt support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email

> to pretext-suppo...@googlegroups.com <mailto:pretext-
> support+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/

> CANXmVMAEKFW%3DWuj%3DBxjJ_qYJRaYhexL0bSTKwwHJrnkrht0PZg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/
> CANXmVMAEKFW%3DWuj%3DBxjJ_qYJRaYhexL0bSTKwwHJrnkrht0PZg%40mail.gmail.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Rob Beezer]

A footnote inside a block/environment will be trapped inside a "tcolorbox"
unless we take evasive action. That is what you were seeing, Matt, the footnote
placed at the end of the block, rather than the end of the page.

A fix is in, but at great cost to any further serious technical work today. ;-)
I hate footnotes. And am no fan of detached proofs. Nor solution proofs.
It'll take a while to reach you via various updates.

> It takes a lot more to make me panic.

Good, I thought so. But keep your towel handy.

Rob

[Rob Beezer]

Now the other shoe is going to drop. ;-)

You have an #example, followed immediately by a #proof. I'm guessing the proof
is a proof of whatever the example claims.

Detached proofs (not inside a #theorem) are meant to be proofs you have delayed
until later (like in a research paper). We do not usually do association by
proximity/adjacency.

You could

1. Move the argument into the example as more content.

2. Make the example a #corollary, which can have a #proof, and even rename it
as an "Example" (there is a way to do this). No one will be able to tell the
difference, but now you can't have any real Corollary. So recycle #proposition
or #fact instead.

3. Give the #example a #solution, then put a #proof inside the solution (a
"solution proof").

I suspect #3 is what you are trying to do. Your footnote might even work (test
says yes). If it doesn't I don't want to hear about it. OK, yes I do, but I
won't be eager to fix it. ;-)

Rob

On 8/14/25 11:43, David Austin wrote:

> I think Rob is probably asking to look at the PTX source, which is here.

> <https://github.com/davidaustinm/fcca/blob/
> e9e6f2cc2100eca8de28151d8a1b422298b6a7cd/source/sec_Cauchy-Riemann.ptx#L299>

> > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> pretext-support/ <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/>
> > a3a3add5-d77b-4390-bec3-c88f70190899n%40googlegroups.com
> <http://40googlegroups.com> <https://
> > groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/a3a3add5-d77b-4390-bec3-
> <http://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/a3a3add5-d77b-4390-bec3->
> > c88f70190899n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

> <http://40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PreTeXt support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email to pretext-suppo...@googlegroups.com <mailto:pretext-
> support+u...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-
> support/0bda57ea-dc67-4772-ba0a-7b93e68a866en%40googlegroups.com <https://
> groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/0bda57ea-dc67-4772-

> ba0a-7b93e68a866en%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PreTeXt support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email

> to pretext-suppo...@googlegroups.com <mailto:pretext-
> support+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-support/

[Matthias Beck]

Thanks so much, Rob!

I'll play with this.

For what it's worth, count me on the pro-side of footnotes, going as far as I might have not used PreTeXt if it disallowed footnotes. And I'm somewhat of a fan of a detached proof if it can be made clear what the proof belongs to. E.g., in a book, I would state Theorem x.y, then give an example of what the theorem is good for, and then give a proof of Theorem x.y.

Thanks again,

matt 

[Rob Beezer]

On 8/14/25 22:52, Matthias Beck wrote:
> For what it's worth, count me on the pro-side of footnotes, going as far as I
> might have not used PreTeXt if it disallowed footnotes.

We do allow them, but we try to limit the damage. I've said this many times
before - footnotes are the opposite of PreTeXt philosophy, they seem to want to
be *everywhere*, as we have discovered just now. Keep them simple (sentences,
not even #p), and do not re-open any threads about footnotes inside of footnotes.

> And I'm somewhat of a
> fan of a detached proof if it can be made clear what the proof belongs to. E.g.,
> in a book, I would state Theorem x.y, then give an example of what the theorem
> is good for, and then give a proof of Theorem x.y.

Look in the sample article. We support pointing from the detached #proof back
to the statement of Theorem x.y and you will get an inicator of that
relationship at the site of the #proof. Use a @xml:id, @ref mechanism, iirc.

Rob