[Q] Widths in maths mode?
Donald Arseneau
>I wanted to define a command that draws a angular bracket
>around arguments in maths mode (in-line and displayed math).
>
>It consists of an horizontal line spanning above the argument, and
>a vertical line to the full height of the argument afterwards. The
>two lines must connect perfectly. Also, these brackets will always
>be used in subscripts.
I remember answering this before. I will see if still have the
answer.
>\settowidth{\brktwd}{#1}
You do *not* want to do that.
>functions (annuities) in Financial Mathematics.
Ah, thanks for that. Dejanews reveals the previous subject was:
"Actuarial & Annuity notation in LaTeX" and it was in late February.
Try:
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=448203604
for both answers. Use the plain TeX version (in LaTeX) as it is
much more efficient.
Donald Arseneau as...@triumf.ca
Alex Wang
I'm using MikTeX 1.20 and the AmS-LaTeX {amsbook} class.
I wanted to define a command that draws a angular bracket
around arguments in maths mode (in-line and displayed math).
It consists of an horizontal line spanning above the argument, and
a vertical line to the full height of the argument afterwards. The
two lines must connect perfectly. Also, these brackets will always
be used in subscripts.
I succeeded in drawing them, but in getting the argument width
with
\newlength{\brktwd}
...
\settowidth{\brktwd}{#1}
...
and later using it as the width in
\rule{\brktwd}{0.1mm}
The width of the rule is actually proportionally longer
than the actual argument! The longer the argument, the
bigger the difference.
How can I get the right width?
And I get the message of "Missing $, inserted" if I use
my command in displayed maths mode --- why?
Lastly, the same command that gives the wrong width
in maths mode produces perfect results in paragraph mode,
i.e. when used on plain texts.
Thanks for your help.
Alex
alex...@geocities.com
====
ps: The notation I referred to are used in compound interest