Re: How to write reports and books in Mathematica

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg109734] Re: How to write reports and books in Mathematica*From*: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>*Date*: Fri, 14 May 2010 05:34:57 -0400 (EDT)*Organization*: Mathematics & Statistics, Univ. of Mass./Amherst*References*: <hsgnis$d5c$1@smc.vnet.net> <4BEC3984.4020002@umbc.edu>*Reply-to*: murray at math.umass.edu

With respect to how typeset math should look, I recommend writings of Donald Knuth. And just because he invented TeX does not mean he's biased in this regard; in fact, he invented TeX because he was dissatisfied with the level to which some typeset math had degenerated and saw the need for a suitable tool to produce typeset math in the modern computer era. Often much or most math typeset by Mathematica is "good enough". But as a matter of simple fact it's just not up to professional mathematical typesetting standards such as one sees in math society journals, or even in the ArXiv. On 5/13/2010 1:40 PM, Kevin J. McCann wrote: > Murray, > > Here we have a difference of opinion. LaTeX and all the other Tex's > require that "code" be written, which is subsequently processed to > generate the final output. To me this is not at all natural and I > observe that others who use it are frequently asking "how do I ..."; > whereas, Mathematica allows me to focus on the equations and words. Now, I know > that with LaTeX there is "infinite" control over how things look; so, > you can make it look just right, but, for me at least, the default look > of equations and text in Mathematica is just fine, and I really don't > want to spend time making it look more right. > > That said, I rely on the Stylesheet to determine the look and feel of > the document, and, as I said in an earlier post, this is not at all > intuitive. So, here is where I have to spend my time, but once the > template (Stylesheet) is done, then that's it. After that documents are > simple, especially equations, which with the keyboard shortcuts are a snap. > > Just my take, > > Kevin > > > Murray Eisenberg wrote: >> Unless you don't know LaTeX, or do know it but don't regard it as a >> "word processing system", then surely you're joking about Mathematica >> being "far superior to any other word processing system." >> >> > -- 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