Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums / MathGroup Archive
-----

MathGroup Archive 2012

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

Search the Archive

Re: Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg125718] Re: Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)
  • From: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>
  • Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:31:29 -0500 (EST)
  • Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
  • References: <201203280959.EAA11124@smc.vnet.net> <201203290801.DAA21842@smc.vnet.net>
  • Reply-to: murray at math.umass.edu

I don't see any keyboard shortcuts for styles in the JournalArticle 
stylesheet beyond the Cmd+1 through Cmd+9 that appear in the Default 
stylesheet too.

Or are there some other ones?

On 3/29/12 4:01 AM, Brentt wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
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: DialogInput in ButtonFunction
  • Next by Date: simplify Arg[E^(I x)]?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)
  • Next by thread: Re: Typesetting in Mathematica (TraditionalForm typesetting?)