[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg125700] Re: Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)
*From*: Brentt <brenttnewman at gmail.com>
*Date*: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:01:21 -0500 (EST)
*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
*References*: <201203280959.EAA11124@smc.vnet.net>
Thank you, I've been using LaTeX for a few years now (before I began
university), and feel pretty confident in it. I use emacs when using LaTeX,
which has all kinds of keyboard shortcuts, so I have all kinds of shortcuts
and keyboard tricks when using it but I've found it very cumbersome to use
in any sort of quick and dirty way even when defining commands for oft used
commands.
And on top of that, when taking notes in class, I find it much harder to
absorb the meaning of the equations while typing LaTeX code, so some WYSYWG
of Mathematica is nice. I have actually found Mathematica very near
adequate, but there are just a couple of these minor issues. It's so close
to be adequate it's almost frustrating that it is not completely adequate
given it seems like it could be if there were just a little more easy
customizability of the notebook..
I'm just experimenting right now but I've been thinking it doesn't seem all
that more efficient to type say \int_{a}^b f(x) dx than esc int esc ctrl+_
a ctrl+b f(x) dx The number of key presses are comparable. Output of
course is not near as nice as LaTeX but it is passable.
I've been looking into Lyx too. I'm really experimenting trying to figure
out which would be best. Maybe mathematica won't work out so well, but it
seems so close.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>wrote:
> Brentt,
>
> This is probably best conveyed off-list.
>
> I utterly love Mathematica for all sorts of things. But for note-taking
> during a class, I cannot imagine that Mathematica is a very efficient
> medium. After all, to get all kinds of symbols you have to use Esc or Ctrl
> sequence combinations, or awkward \[...\] strings, or menu buttons.
>
> I should think that if you don't want to use paper and pencil, it would be
> _much_ more efficient to use LaTeX markup. Thus, typing
>
> \int_0^{\infty} e^{\pi i t} dt
>
> than the corresponding thing in Mathematica. You could even, if you wish,
> omit the leading "\" symbols in such things and insert them later in a text
> editor with search-and-replace.
>
> And of course you can always import TeX mark-up text into Mathematica.
>
> There is a way to add new keyboard shortcuts, and as I recall that
> requires modifying one of Mathematica's system files. I'm sure others will
> post explanations about that.
>
> Murray
>
>
> On 3/28/12 3:44 PM, Brentt wrote:
>
>> Oh that works. That helps a lot thanks :)
>>
>> I guess the only think remaining: is there anyway to turn a cell into
>> DisplayForm using a keyboard shortcut? Is there a way to define custom
>> shortcuts if one doesn't already exist?
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Murray Eisenberg<murray at math.umass.**edu<murray at math.umass.edu>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> You do NOT have to evaluate an Input cell in order to convert it to
>>> TraditionalForm! Just select it (or all Input cells, if you wish), and
>>> use
>>> the menu item Cell> Convert To> Traditional Form.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/28/12 5:59 AM, Brentt wrote:
>>>
>>> Summary of question: Is there a cell style that can do TraditionalForm
>>>> like
>>>> typesetting (without first evaluating an input cell?) And if this
>>>> capability exists, can the functionality be bound to a key combination
>>>> (shortcut)?
>>>> ================
>>>>
>>>> Hi, I've been trying to use Mathematica for taking class notes and
>>>> homework
>>>> assignments lately. In general I've found it faster than typing things
>>>> up
>>>> in LaTeX and it has passable typesetting quality, but there is one minor
>>>> issue I've been having that I've not been able to find a solution to in
>>>> the
>>>> docs:
>>>>
>>>> I can't figure out how to do a good "non-inline" formulas (off-line?),
>>>> something like latex's math environment ("\[ ... \]" or $$ ... $$.)
>>>>
>>>> The "DisplayFormula" cell style formats equations like a proper latex
>>>> "off-line" math environment, except the font is a thin, not very nice
>>>> looking font.
>>>>
>>>> I know Mathematica has some decent math fonts, because TraditionalForm
>>>> output is rather nice, except to get a TraditionalForm font apparently
>>>> one
>>>> first has to evaluate an input cell, and accept Mathematica's default
>>>> symbolic manipulations (barring tinkering), which isn't a very
>>>> convenient
>>>> set up for quick typesetting.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a cell style that can do TraditionalForm like typesetting
>>>> (without
>>>> first evaluating an input cell?) And if this capability exists, can the
>>>> functionality be bound to a key shortcut?
>>>>
>>>> Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> 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: Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)**
Next by Date:
**Re: Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)**
Next by thread:
**Re: Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)**
| |