Re: Re: Re: Re: Which editor do you use for math
Yes, and I did say that the AMS Macros are meant for plain TeX users.
However, since AMSLateX largely incorporates Spivak's AMS macro
package, and Spivak's book is still useful even if you use AMSLatex.
Also, there are some advantages in using the original AMS macros,
particularly for those who find LateX too restrictive (LateX provides
one with a lot of pre-defined constructions but as always in such
cases at the cost of forcing one to do things the way the creators of
LateX decided was the most desirable.)
However, my main point was different. I do have Gratzler's book and I
sometimes use it, unlike Spivak's book I can't imagine anyone reading
it just for the jokes ;-)
On 26 Jan 2009, at 11:02, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken, Spivak's book is about the amstex macro, not the
> more commonly used (today) LaTeX + AMSLaTeX.
> I highly recommend instead Graetzer's "More Math into LaTeX", 4th ed.
> Andrzej Kozlowski wrote:
>> To anyone who is thinking of using TeX to write some serious
>> mathematics I would also recommend Michael Spivak's "The Joy of
>> TeX" (1990 AMS) together with the AMS macros (which are also included
>> in the more recent AMS-LateX. AMS-Tex works with Plain TeX, which
>> sometimes is more flexible than LateX).
>> Spivak's book is very clear and witty, and, for a mathematician, much
>> more accessible than Knuth's rather incomprehensible manual. Yes, the
>> title is rather 1980s and yes, it meant to remind you of what it
>> probably reminds you (if you are old enough, that is).
>> As for Donald Knuth, I think the Art of Computer Programing does him
>> more justice as a genius and this book:
>> as a writer.
>> Andrzej Kozlowski
>> On 25 Jan 2009, at 12:52, AES wrote:
>>> In article <gletfq$4nm$1 at smc.vnet.net>,
>>> Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> If you are to effectively make use of LaTeX you will definitely
>>>> want to get a book written about using LaTeX. Like Mathematica,
>>>> LaTeX will require quite a bit of study/usage before you will
>>>> really be comfortable using it. I believe the payoff for
>>>> learning LaTeX warrants the effort.
>>> I'd just add that you might also want to acquire a copy of Knuth's
>>> original users guide for TeX, not only for getting a very readable
>>> introduction to the basic concepts of TeX itself, but even more just
>>> the pleasure of reading or scanning it and getting a near-personal
>>> encounter with a genuine genius, as well as adding a true classic to
>>> your library.
>>> (Of course it may also make you weep, which you compare Knuth's
>>> to user documentation to Wolfram's current approach.)
>>> Last I looked there was one used copy of the original spiralbound
>>> paperback TeXBook for sale on amazon for $25. Given the tattered
>>> condition of my original copy, I nearly bought it. The current
>>> version seems to be retitled as Computers & Typesetting, Volume A:
>>> TeXbook (Computers & Typesetting Series) (Hardcover) and costs a
>>> more. I'm guessing it contains essentially the same material as the
> Murray Eisenberg murray at math.umass.edu
> Mathematics & Statistics Dept.
> Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H)
> University of Massachusetts 413 545-2859 (W)
> 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801
> Amherst, MA 01003-9305
Prev by Date:
Re: A question about Mathematica
Next by Date:
Re: NIntegrate and Plot
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Re: Which editor do you use for math
Next by thread:
Frames on Density Plots in Version 7