Re: Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg125701] Re: Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)*From*: Brentt <brenttnewman at gmail.com>*Date*: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:01:42 -0500 (EST)*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com*References*: <201203280959.EAA11124@smc.vnet.net>

I just discovered the Journal article stylesheet, which has perfect key-board mappings for note taking. Thanks for everyone for the input On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Brentt <brenttnewman at gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> > >

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)***From:*Murray Eisenberg <murray@math.umass.edu>

**References**:**Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)***From:*Brentt <brenttnewman@gmail.com>