Re: TeX output via TeXForm: variable name translation
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg101031] Re: TeX output via TeXForm: variable name translation
- From: Jens-Peer Kuska <kuska at informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:07:08 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <h1hbfh$mq$1@smc.vnet.net>
Hi,
set up the boxes for you symbol in a proper way and Mathematica
does the rest, i.e.
e1 /: MakeBoxes[e1, fmt_: StandardForm] :=
SubscriptBox["\[Epsilon]", "1"]
and
TeXForm[e1]
gives
\epsilon _1
Regards
Jens
dnquark wrote:
> I am trying to find a good way to interoperate between Mathematica and
> LaTeX (or LyX).
> Typically, I am workign with multi-character variable names, which
> TeXForm interprets as text:
>
> In[65]:= TeXForm[e1]
> Out[65]//TeXForm=
> \text{e1}
>
> To get around this, I am trying to create a translation table of
> sorts: e.g.
>
> TranslationTable1 = {{e1, "\\epsilon_1"}, {e0, "\\epsilon_0"}, {kz0t,
> "\\tilde{k^{(0)}_z}"}, {kz1t, "\\tilde{k^{(1)}_z}"}};
>
> I would like, if possible, to perform those replacements in
> Mathematica, without writing and invoking external scripts. The first
> thing I tried was this:
>
> TeXReplacements := (Rule[#[[1]], ToExpression[#[[2]], TeXForm,
> HoldForm]] & /@ TranslationTable1)
>
> In[67]:= (e1*kz0t) /. TeXReplacements // TeXForm
>
> Out[67]//TeXForm=
> \epsilon _1 \tilde{k_z^0}
>
> (This simply does the following:
> In[69]:= (e1*kz0t) /. {e1 -> ToExpression["\\epsilon_1", TeXForm,
> HoldForm],
> kz0t -> ToExpression["\\tilde{k^{(0)}_z}", TeXForm, HoldForm]} //
> TeXForm
>
> Out[69]//TeXForm=
> \epsilon _1 \tilde{k_z^0}
> )
>
> Notice how this doesn't work: Take a look at the translation table
> above and notice parentheses around in k_z^{(0)}. Mathematica
> discards these parentheses.
>
> So the question to the group is: (1) is it possible to preserve the
> formatting exactly how I specified it in the translation table before
> converting to TeXForm or (2) is it possible to do a replacement using
> my translation table after I had converted to TeXForm or (3) is there
> a better solution altogether?
>
> Thanks!
>