[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Re: Typesetting: ?Big Sigmas and Little Sigmas?

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg46947] Re: Typesetting: ?Big Sigmas and Little Sigmas?
• From: Mike <m.HoneychurcNOSPAMh at uq.edu.au>
• Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:55:14 -0500 (EST)
• Organization: University of Queensland
• References: <c36bic$s3o$1@smc.vnet.net>
• Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Check out LimitsPositioning in the help browser.

You'll need to modify your stylesheet.

Mike


On 16/3/04 5:49 PM, in article c36bic$s3o$1 at smc.vnet.net, "Brian Beckman"
<brianbec at comcast.net> wrote:

> (Windows Notebook Interface) Normally, I set up a cell with Alt-7 for
> text input, then I typeset inline with ctrl-9.  I also get a
> typesetting palette up with templates to click for integrals, roots,
> sums, and so on.  Here is my problem. Suppose i want a BIG SIGMA
> summation sign, with i=1 on the bottom and n on the top.  Standard,
> eh?  The clicky on the palette looks just like that.  However, when it
> goes in the ctrl-9 typesetting box, it has the i=1 to the right of the
> lower horn of the Sigma rather than underneath the Sigma, and it has
> the n to the right of the upper horn of the Sigma rather than over the
> top of the Sigma.  In other words, the palette gives me the vertically
> compressed form of the summation notation, when I want the tall form.
> 
> I've tried all kinds of tricks with the over-and-under clickies,
> attempting to construct the form I want manually and the NB interface
> is just too smart -- it keeps squishing things vertically.  Ditto for
> lim notation, by the way.  I want "lim" on the top and "h->0" on the
> bottom, but the interface insists on squishing this to "lim" with
> "h->0" as a subscript to "lim."  I'm frustrated but not blocked.  My
> typesetting is coming out ugly but readable.
> 
> My fingers learned these shortcuts (Alt-7 and Ctrl-9) long ago and my
> mind has forgotten the English names for them, so I haven't been able
> to find them in the documentation.
> 
> Any clues for me?
>