Re: typesetting fractions

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg45776] Re: typesetting fractions*From*: "Steve Luttrell" <steve1 at _removemefirst_luttrell.org.uk>*Date*: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:29:04 -0500 (EST)*References*: <200401201008.FAA27408@smc.vnet.net> <200401220837.DAA17457@smc.vnet.net> <buqmch$raa$1@smc.vnet.net>*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

" Indications are that someone at WRI wants to develop Mathematica into a first rate technical publishing tool. It should be explained to them that this is just a waste of time and talent if the use of the tool is to be such a jealously guarded secret." I couldn't agree more. I also use Mathematica for all my technical authoring. To ease the pain I think of the process of discovering how to do "clever" authoring as an intellectual game, where I know in advance that the solution to any authoring problem will be logical and obvious with hindsight. Steve Luttrell "Garry Helzer" <gah at math.umd.edu> wrote in message news:buqmch$raa$1 at smc.vnet.net... > Since Selwyn has fallen down in the venting department I will offer a > few remarks. > > For the last few years I have used Mathematica exclusively for > technical writing, mostly because it gives me better control over > figure placement and keeps everything in a single file. That said, it > is nonetheless an aggravating experience in many ways. The > subscript/quotient font size problem is a daily irritation. Here's my > question. TeX does an excellent job in this regard. TeX has been around > since the '60s and is open source. Why doesn't someone at WRI just look > at how TeX does it and incorporate the rules? Why reinvent the > wheel especially if the wheels you produce in house always seem to have > corners on the rim? > > A personal bugaboo of mine is the spelling checker. I don't have > problems with the spelling checker in any other software, just > Mathematica. Ever since 3.0 I have been trying to teach it that > bivector is a word. No luck. It just keeps telling me to try bevatron > instead. I tell it to learn the word, it puts it in some user defined > dictionary, and then ignores it. > > I keep a copy of the Summer-Fall 1999 issue of Mathematica in Education > and Research in a file cabinet just so I can look up how to change an > unmatched bracket from pink to black whenever I want to define a > multiline function (p. 87). > > Indications are that someone at WRI wants to develop Mathematica into a > first rate technical publishing tool. It should be explained to them > that this is just a waste of time and talent if the use of the tool > is to be such a jealously guarded secret. > > If Mathematica is to have more than marginal use as a technical > publication system WRI needs to produce, in house or outhouse, a > Mathematica equivalent of The Joy of TeX. Cursory documentation and > scattered hints in journals will not do it. > > On Jan 22, 2004, at 3:37 AM, Selwyn Hollis wote: > > > On Jan 20, 2004, at 5:08 AM, John Fultz wrote: > > > >> I didn't reply to this thread earlier because I figured one of the > >> usual > >> experts would pick it up and run with it, but it appears not. By > >> reading > >> Selwyn's answer, I think he knows how to do this but decided to vent > >> about > >> the method rather than explain it. > > > > What, me vent? I could show you venting, but I won't. > > > > The real issue here is why this design flaw has persisted from version > > 3.0 to version 5.0. It is clearly an example of sheer corner-cutting. > > There is no typographical rationale whatsoever for treating numerators > > and denominators of fractions the same way as subscripts and > > superscripts. > > > > For example, what if I want to have ScriptSizeMultipliers->1 in a > > fraction that contains subexpressions with superscripts? Then the > > superscripts are the same size as the bases to which they are attached, > > and the whole thing looks silly -- thus I have go in and do a lot of > > meticulous tweaking. > > > > Again, I could be missing something and have wasted countless hours in > > trying to make many hundreds of pages worthy of publication. But maybe > > it's my own fault for dreaming that I could approach TeX-like quality > > with Mathematica. > > > > ----- > > Selwyn Hollis > > http://www.math.armstrong.edu/faculty/hollis > > (edit reply-to to reply) > > > > > > > >> In the Option Inspector is an option called ScriptSizeMultipliers. > >> This, > >> combined with the ScriptMinSize, determines sizing for fractions and > >> scripts (sorry, Selwyn). The easiest way to do what Murray and Sabit > >> want > >> is to set the ScriptSizeMultipliers option to 1. This could be set > at > >> the > >> notebook or global level, as you feel appropriate, or wrapped > >> individually > >> around fractions if you don't want sub/superscripts to pick up the > >> option > >> value. > >> > >> To answer Sabit's second question, select the bracket of the cell > >> you'd > >> like to change, and use the Option Inspector to set the > >> SingleLetterItalics > >> option to False at the selection scope. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> John Fultz > >> jfultz at wolfram.com > >> User Interface Group > >> Wolfram Research, Inc. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:58:02 -0500 (EST), Murray Eisenberg wrote: > >>> I quite agree that this is an annoyance with Mahematica's typsetting > >>> of > >>> mathematics. > >>> > >>> An underlying difficulty is that there is no separate notion of > >>> "display > >>> math" -- mathematical expressions displayed on separate lines -- as > >>> opposed to math within normal paragraphs of text. This may be an > >>> unfortunate front-end design limitation. > >>> > >>> The problem is reminiscent of the same problem in LaTeX, where > >>> in-line, > >>> built-up fractions (and other constructs) have their components >>> small. > >>> But in LaTeX, there is an option (which one needs to apply to each > >>> instance) to make such in-line math "displaystyle", which enlarges the > >>> components to the same large size as if they were in a display. > >>> > >>> I devoutly wish there were such a capability in Mathematica -- > >>> whether a > >>> per-instance option as with LaTeX, or a global option for a notebook. > >>> > >>> Selwyn Hollis wrote: > >>> > >>>> My understanding is that the size of fractions is determined by the > >>>> same option that determines the size of subscripts and superscripts, > >>>> which is highly unfortunate. I could be wrong about this; if so I'd > >>>> love to find out. I find it a major pain in the neck always to have > >>>> to > >>>> increase the size of fractions manually. Maybe this is an > >>>> improvement > >>>> we can hope for in version 6.0. > >>>> > >>>> ----- > >>>> Selwyn Hollis > >>>> http://www.math.armstrong.edu/faculty/hollis > >>>> (edit reply-to to reply) > >>>> > >>>> On Jan 14, 2004, at 1:26 AM, sabit wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I am trying to do some typesetting with mathematica. I noticed that > >>>>> in > >>>>> some styles fractions are set in reduced point size. What is the > >>>>> option that would fix this? I want both denominator and the > >>>>> numerator > >>>>> set in the same size as the text. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also I have the single letter italic enabled for cells where I > have > >>>>> the equations but in the cells where there is a lot of text I > don't > >>>>> want this option. Now I copy and paste a previous cell and use it > > >>>>> as > >>>>> new cell but I am sure there is a better way, probably with > styles. > >>>>> Wolfram site lists two documents about typesetting but they are > not > >>>>> available to download. Does anyone know a good reference for > >>>>> tpesetting with mathematica? > >> > >> > >> > > > > > Garry Helzer > Department of Mathematics > University of Maryland > College Park, MD 20742 > 301-405-5176 > gah at math.umd.edu > >

**References**:**Re: Re: Re: typesetting fractions***From:*John Fultz <jfultz@wolfram.com>

**Re: Re: Re: Re: typesetting fractions***From:*Selwyn Hollis <sh2.7183@misspelled.erthlink.net>

**RE: Re: copying**

**Re: Package dependencies**

**Re: typesetting fractions**

**Re: typesetting fractions**