Re: typesetting fractions

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg45923] Re: typesetting fractions*From*: Paul Abbott <paul at physics.uwa.edu.au>*Date*: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:36:50 -0500 (EST)*Organization*: The University of Western Australia*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

In article <buqmch$raa$1 at smc.vnet.net>, Garry Helzer <gah at math.umd.edu> wrote: > 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. The rules for scripts and fractions, with the exception of the addition of ScriptMinSize (which is more general than TeX's limiting to two shrinkings), is identical. > 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? Mathematica's typesetting (developed by Neil Soiffer, now at Design Science, Inc) *is* based on TeX's typesetting of math (appendix G of the TeX book). The fonts (developed by Andre Kuzniarek <mailto:andre at wolfram.com>) are different, and TeX's fonts specify certain metrics that are used in TeX's typesetting, so the typesetting of math using the Mathematica fonts (which, IMHO, look much better than Knuth's computer modern) will look a little different, but not too different. > 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). For multiline functions, it is appropriate to complain about poor or inadequate documentation. The feature is there, in much the same way it is there in TeX (\left. \right.). This isn't an issue about a lack of functionality or ease of use compared TeX. However documentation is lacking. > 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. Publicon <http://www.wolfram.com/products/publicon/> is intended to address the issues of publication/printing quality by converting to TeX or some other printing format. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Abbott Phone: +61 8 9380 2734 School of Physics, M013 Fax: +61 8 9380 1014 The University of Western Australia (CRICOS Provider No 00126G) 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 mailto:paul at physics.uwa.edu.au AUSTRALIA http://physics.uwa.edu.au/~paul

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

**Re: Nasty bug in Integrate (version 5.0)**

**Re: RE: GridPlot**

**Re: typesetting fractions**

**Re: Re: typesetting fractions**