cdots vs. ldots - is there a rule for using binary operation?
Martin
Is there a typographical rule whether tu use
$x_1+x_2+\ldots+x_n$
or
$x_1+x_2+\cdots+x_n$;
i.e., whether a binary opeation should be combined with cdots or
ldots?
(To me ldots looks better, but it is certainly a matter of taste.)
TIA
Martin
Joseph Wright
\cdots with operators (for example + \cdots +), \ldots with other
things (, \ldots ,).
Joseph Wright
Lars Madsen
use \dots instead, it will automatically switch to \cdots when needed.
--
/daleif (remove RTFSIGNATURE from email address)
LaTeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
LaTeX book: http://www.imf.au.dk/system/latex/bog/ (in Danish)
Remember to post minimal examples, see URL below
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=minxampl
http://www.minimalbeispiel.de/mini-en.html
Dirk Schlimm
> use \dots instead, it will automatically switch to \cdots when needed.
This was new to me. I tried it out and found that to get \dots to
switch
automatically between \cdots and \ldots, one also needs:
\usepackage{amsmath}
Thanks, Dirk
Ray Vickson
\cdots lines up with the horizontal parts of + or - signs, and also
"looks like" the centered dots of multiplication. On the other hand,
in a statement like "let X_1, X_2, \ldots be a sequence ...", the dots
line up with the centers (or nearly so) of the subscripts. I think
these two methods look better than a single one using only ldots.
(Where an issue really arises, or so it seems to me, is in a statement
such as "let a, a^2, \cdots or \ldots be the sequence of powers ...";
in this case, would \cdots look better, or would \ldots be preferred?)
I suppose some journals might even have rules about appropriate usage.
R.G. Vickson
Proginoskes
> Martin wrote:
> > Hi all!
> > Is there a typographical rule whether tu use
> > $x_1+x_2+\ldots+x_n$
> > or
> > $x_1+x_2+\cdots+x_n$;
> > i.e., whether a binary opeation should be combined with cdots or
> > ldots?
> > (To me ldots looks better, but it is certainly a matter of taste.)
> > TIA
> > Martin
>
> use \dots instead, it will automatically switch to \cdots when needed.
Not in real (Plain) TeX it doesn't.
--- Christopher Heckman
Lars Madsen
doesn't everyone already use amsmath? and if not which good reasons are
there not to use it ;-)
Lars Madsen
and who was talking about plain TeX? people rarely use plain TeX any more
Robin Fairbairns
>Proginoskes wrote:
>> Not in real (Plain) TeX it doesn't.
>
i know several who do. however, it does seem a characteristic of some
of these people that they have some sort of inferiority complex about
their (entirely valid) use of knuth's basic set of macros, and feel
the need to barrack threads about other packages.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
David Kastrup
IniTeX RuLeZZZ!!!!1!
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
UKTUG FAQ: <URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html>
M J Carley
>doesn't everyone already use amsmath? and if not which good reasons
>are there not to use it ;-)
Some journals don't like it.
--
Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario
rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle
nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici.
Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
Lars Madsen
> In the referenced article, Lars Madsen <dal...@RTFSIGNATUREimf.au.dk> writes:
>
>> doesn't everyone already use amsmath? and if not which good reasons
>> are there not to use it ;-)
>
> Some journals don't like it.
who and why?
Proginoskes
Which I don't do. Hell, I even USE PiCTeX!
((Later:)) "Barrack" is an interesting word, because it can be used
either to cheer for something, or to jeer at it. I suspect the usage
is the latter, which would then make Fairbairns British and not
Australian.
--- Christopher Heckman
Proginoskes
> r...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
> > Lars Madsen <dal...@RTFSIGNATUREimf.au.dk> writes:
> >>Proginoskes wrote:
> >>> Not in real (Plain) TeX it doesn't.
>
> >>and who was talking about plain TeX? people rarely use plain TeX any more
>
> > i know several who do. however, it does seem a characteristic of some
> > of these people that they have some sort of inferiority complex about
> > their (entirely valid) use of knuth's basic set of macros, and feel
> > the need to barrack threads about other packages.
>
> IniTeX RuLeZZZ!!!!1!
All right ... Who let B1FF back on the Internet????
--- Christopher Heckman
M J Carley
>M J Carley wrote:
>> In the referenced article, Lars Madsen <dal...@RTFSIGNATUREimf.au.dk> writes:
>>
>>> doesn't everyone already use amsmath? and if not which good reasons
>>> are there not to use it ;-)
>>
>> Some journals don't like it.
>
>who and why?
Because they want you to use their class file and it clashes with
AMS. Off hand, I can think of SIAM.
Phil Carmody
> On Sep 9, 8:17 am, r...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) wrote:
> > Lars Madsen <dal...@RTFSIGNATUREimf.au.dk> writes:
> >
> > >Proginoskes wrote:
> > >> Not in real (Plain) TeX it doesn't.
> >
> > >and who was talking about plain TeX? people rarely use plain TeX any more
> >
> > i know several who do. however, it does seem a characteristic of some
> > of these people that they have some sort of inferiority complex about
> > their (entirely valid) use of knuth's basic set of macros, and feel
> > the need to barrack threads about other packages.
> ((Later:)) "Barrack" is an interesting word, because it can be used
> either to cheer for something, or to jeer at it.
Just like "gunning for" then, modulo parity.
Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
Maarten
> M J Carley wrote:
> > In the referenced article, Lars Madsen <dal...@RTFSIGNATUREimf.au.dk> writes:
>
> >> doesn't everyone already use amsmath? and if not which good reasons
> >> are there not to use it ;-)
>
> > Some journals don't like it.
>
> who and why?
The AGU journals, because they want to be able to automagically
translate the incoming LaTeX into an XML variant, and useing any
package that they didn't approve clashes with that. Yes, that royally
sucks for authors.
Maarten
Robin Fairbairns
in the sense that it's difficult to make their papers look decent for
their own purposes, only. if the journal is going to throw away such
quality as the author has achieved, anyway, it's hardly significant in
the long term...
refusing amslatex in a latex-based production process is unforgiveable
(by me, at least). refusing it in the agu context is understandble.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge