Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the very first section of this document, entitled "Typesetting as a Form of Art" contains in the first two lines an incorrect opening quotation mark (`` instead of “) and a hyphen (-) instead of an em-dash (–).
The Art of LaTeX: Common mistakes and advice for typesetting proofs
51–60 of 149 posts
Re: The Art of LaTeX: Common mistakes and advice for typesetting proofs
#52Some of the images don't appear to render for me. Also, the author includes an example of \int xyzdx and makes a note of using appropriate spacing. It is my impression that commonly the differential operator is typeset differently, that is: \mathrm{d}x . Otherwise, great tips.
In physics, it's \mathrm dx. In mathematics, it's dx.
?
Re: The Art of LaTeX: Common mistakes and advice for typesetting proofs
#53Most of this is good advice, but I don't see the \mathbbm vs. \mathbb distinction as anything other than subjective taste. Also, I use things like \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left| #1 \right|} in the preamble. This way, I can use \abs{...} without any asterisks, and it automatically adjusts its size. In the 1% situations where I don't want it to adjust the size, I write the delimiters manually. Making maths look good in La…
Use `DeclarePairedDelimiter` from `mathtools`.
The rule of TeX is that anything that is written in TeX is instantly old. Because people don't read what Knuth had in mind. TeX was the prototype not the production grade product. Still people refuse to get the message.
Re: The Art of LaTeX: Common mistakes and advice for typesetting proofs
#54I understand that some people do not want to use Latex, but i do not get the hate. Not for you? Move on, do you own thing
Re: The Art of LaTeX: Common mistakes and advice for typesetting proofs
#55Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the very first section of this document, entitled "Typesetting as a Form of Art" contains in the first two lines an incorrect opening quotation mark (`` instead of “) and a hyphen (-) instead of an em-dash (–).
Ah, I guess that's what happens when you do both Markdown and LaTeX in the same document! Thanks for pointing it out, I've also been pretty sloppy with hyphen and em-dash in normal writing. Maybe someone could write a similar post for online HTML content in the future?
Re: The Art of LaTeX: Common mistakes and advice for typesetting proofs
#56Most of this is good advice, but I don't see the \mathbbm vs. \mathbb distinction as anything other than subjective taste. Also, I use things like \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left| #1 \right|} in the preamble. This way, I can use \abs{...} without any asterisks, and it automatically adjusts its size. In the 1% situations where I don't want it to adjust the size, I write the delimiters manually. Making maths look good in La…
Both mathbbm and mathbb are wrong for number sets. These fonts look like the blackboard hack that you use to simulate boldface using chalk. On a computer you don't have this problem and you can simply use mathbf (actual boldface).
Interesting explanation on how it developed historically. I've seen mathbf used in some books, but I guess old conventions are hard to change.
Re: The Art of LaTeX: Common mistakes and advice for typesetting proofs
#57Some of the images don't appear to render for me. Also, the author includes an example of \int xyzdx and makes a note of using appropriate spacing. It is my impression that commonly the differential operator is typeset differently, that is: \mathrm{d}x . Otherwise, great tips.
FWIW there is an ISO Standard:
> ISO 80000-2:2009 > Quantities and units — Part 2: Mathematical signs and symbols to be used in the natural sciences and technology
https://nhigham.com/2016/01/28/typesetting-mathematics-accor...
Re: The Art of LaTeX: Common mistakes and advice for typesetting proofs
#58I have a question: if what you have to write in order to create your beautiful and aesthetically pleasing proof, and thereby "establish your ethos and character" (presumably as a righteous and good), is an ugly and fragile instance of a poorly designed, inherently unreadable, archaic language that embodies none of the characteristics you are after, can the result really be "a work of art that combines both the precis…
I am still looking for a text markup system that gives me good PDFs with DTP-grade text setting and and is plain-text, so I can work with standard version control programs. Right now, only TeX/LaTeX comes close. AsciiDoctor is not doing citations well, Markdown is basically a mess which differs in implementation, also footnotes and citations. Do you have something better?
How is Quarto? It uses Pandoc Markdown.
Re: The Art of LaTeX: Common mistakes and advice for typesetting proofs
#59I have a question: if what you have to write in order to create your beautiful and aesthetically pleasing proof, and thereby "establish your ethos and character" (presumably as a righteous and good), is an ugly and fragile instance of a poorly designed, inherently unreadable, archaic language that embodies none of the characteristics you are after, can the result really be "a work of art that combines both the precis…
As ugly as it may appear to you, it is so much more readable than MathML Core.
TeX is, in fact, still better than all the alternatives to represent mathematical equations in plain text created so far.
Re: The Art of LaTeX: Common mistakes and advice for typesetting proofs
#60Latex and Tex, my goto language for beautiful documents.
Try rewriting Knuth's books with markdown.