Numbering equations non-distinct with blocks

[Oscar Levin]

Currently equations are numbered distinct from blocks, and there is not an option to make these non-distinct.  There is already infrastructure to decide whether projects, exercises, figures, and openproblems should have their numbering distinct via the publication file.

Would it be agreeable to extend this choice to equations (and footnotes, I suppose), keeping the distinct="yes" as the default in these cases?  

The reason is to support existing books that happen to have this (possibly bad) choice, but since they are still "in print" it is not feasible to enforce "the right way" on all future editions (numbering of subsequent blocks would change otherwise).

[Oscar Levin]

Any thoughts about this?  I know I forgot about this post in the flurry of everything around the beginning of the semester.  

[Jean-Sébastien Turcotte]

Some thoughts, that aren't even non problematic with the current use but still.

What happens, as a reader, if the author burrowed a bunched of numbered equation inside a knowled environment? The text goes from theorem 2.3.4 to example 2.3.16 in the span of a few lines.

I usually am in favor of a one counter numbering system, but that usually applies to named things in the text. I'll admit I've always viewed equation as something else, most likely because it is like that in LaTeX.

One thing in favor of keeping them separate, right now equation numbers appear on the right, while most other numbered thing lean to the left of the text. I feel that that makes it easy enough to navigate despite having two numbering systems.

[Oscar Levin]

I agree that almost always the better choice is to have equations numbered on a separate counter.  But existing books have historically made the opposite decision.  To created an accessible pretext version of the book, it is not practical to renumber everything: any numbered blocks after an equation will have different numbers in print as online.  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PreTeXt development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pretext-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/075b3466-cf82-4006-b42b-904e0abdb211n%40googlegroups.com.

[David W. Farmer]

And to repeat the basic argument: If I am looking at Lemma 3.15, do I go
forward or backward to find Equation 3.12? The fact that some numbers
appear on the right and some the left, does not address that point.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/CAOU9BaV7nBzxCqkmazB2J4S9Ay7PDUpSP4_si8p5H5aze0Unfg%40mail.gmail.com.
>
>

[Rob Beezer]

On 9/3/26 10:28, Oscar Levin wrote:
> Any thoughts about this?  I know I forgot about this post in the flurry of
> everything around the beginning of the semester.

Sorry, this one got a bit lost, and only popped into my head when I was not at a
keyboard.

> The reason is to support existing books that happen to have this (possibly
> bad) choice, but since they are still "in print" it is not feasible to
> enforce "the right way" on all future editions (numbering of subsequent
> blocks would change otherwise).

It was never our intent to be retroactive. We are not the Text Encoding
Initiative (TEI). That said, I am grateful for all the work that has allowed
"old" projects to come over to PreTeXt. But I suspect every one of those
conversions has had to adapt to some aspect of PreTeXt that was not part of
their initial design.

And if a book has "Equation Numbering Done Wrong" why would we encourage future
authors to repeat the mistake?

The philosophy on numbering is that items have the same counter if and only if
they are visually distinct.

So all blocks have run-in headings, or similar, connected to some text.
References are collected in #references division with sequential numbers,
equations are numbered on the right inside parentheses. Projects may have a
distinct counter (but it is no longer the default), an exception, and an option
I regret allowing. Figures (plus tables, lists, listing) are on the borderline,
they are visually distinct, but not radically different from blocks. Footnotes
are visually distinct, and we are moving to a state where you only ever see
their serial number anyway.

On 9/4/26 14:40, David W. Farmer wrote:
> And to repeat the basic argument: If I am looking at Lemma 3.15

I think that has the premise wrong, if you are looking for Equation 3.12, you
should find a numbered equation and do your looking from there, Lemmas,
Definitions, Remarks are not your guideposts, equations are. And it is easy to
distinguish the two groups while scanning. Would you start searching for Lemma
3.15 by starting at Equation 3.12?

Rob