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:
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top