Typesetting multi-line equations

  • Thread starter Thread starter DrClaude
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Typesetting
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the proper typesetting of multi-line equations, particularly when the left-hand side (LHS) remains constant. One participant questions whether to repeat the LHS in each line for clarity, especially when inserting additional steps later. Another contributor argues that once an approximation symbol is introduced, using an equal sign afterward can create confusion regarding the validity of subsequent approximations. They emphasize that while various formatting options are acceptable, the final line in the original example is incorrect as it uses an equal sign instead of an approximate sign. Clarity in mathematical communication is deemed essential to avoid confusion during later reviews.
DrClaude
Mentor
Messages
8,477
Reaction score
5,693
I have a question on how to properly typeset a series of inequalities or approximate equalities when the LHS does not change. Take for example
<br /> f(x) = \sin(x) \\<br /> \quad \approx x - \frac{x^3}{3!} \\<br /> \quad = x - \frac{x^3}{6} <br />
What I did there is that I took it as if it was one long line,
<br /> f(x) = \sin(x) \approx x - \frac{x^3}{3!} = x - \frac{x^3}{6} <br />
that is split and stacked. Is this the correct way to do it? Or is it assumed that the LHS repeats, i.e.,
<br /> f(x) = \sin(x) \\<br /> f(x) \approx x - \frac{x^3}{3!} \\<br /> f(x) = x - \frac{x^3}{6} <br />
in which case the last line is incorrect?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I would for clarity use the aproximately equals in the last equation and repeat the LHS.

Why?

Because as you're composing your solution steps you might need to insert a step and by not explicitly typing the LHS for each line means confusion will set in especially if you're reviewing your work weeks or months later for a test.
 
jedishrfu said:
I would for clarity use the aproximately equals in the last equation and repeat the LHS.
What I don't like about your approach is that once you introduce a \approx, there are no more =, so that it is not obvious if additional approximations are made.

There is also a problem when the LHS is itself very long.
 
My basic "rules" would be
(1) never write anything that is actually wrong.
(2) assume the reader at least knows enough to follow the mathematical argument.

So in the OP, all the options are OK, except for the last line $$f(x) = x - \frac{x^3}{6}$$ which just plain wrong.

In a more complicated situation you might need to spell out a detail like "and since 3! = 6 we get" ...
 
AlephZero said:
(2) assume the reader at least knows enough to follow the mathematical argument.

I like that :smile:
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top