Suggestion Why is the math output hard to read sometimes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter squidsoft
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the readability issues of math output in the forum, particularly regarding the display of LaTeX-rendered equations. Users have noted that the equal sign alignment and font clarity are problematic, especially on a grey background. Changes in LaTeX distributions have been identified as a potential cause of these issues, prompting suggestions for adjustments to the LaTeX renderer. Warren, a participant, has experimented with anti-aliasing settings and is considering switching to ImageMagick for better output quality. Overall, there is a consensus that improving the math output's appearance would enhance the forum's professionalism and user experience.
  • #51
Testing 5...

e^{\ln x} = 7

\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\chi(n) }{n^{s}}=\prod_{p\in\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{1}{1-\frac{\chi(p)}{p^{s}}}\right)

- Warren
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Testing 6...

e^{\ln x} = 7

\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\chi(n) }{n^{s}}=\prod_{p\in\mathbb{P}}\left(\frac{1}{1-\frac{\chi(p)}{p^{s}}}\right)

- Warren
 
  • #53
Thanks for the suggestion, robphy! I went with a gamma of 0.6, which looks nice on my monitor. Let me know what you think. (I added the +repage, too.)

- Warren
 
  • #54
Just for giggles, check out the LaTeX output as it was introduced almost six years ago. (Wow...)

Open it in a new tab or window, and compare to the output today:

<br /> \frac{1}{2}<br />

<br /> R^a{}_{bcd}<br />

<br /> \nabla \times C<br />

<br /> \mathbb{RC}<br />

\lambda_j = \vec{\lambda} \cdot \vec{e}_j

\lambda_j = \mathbf{\lambda} \cdot \mathbf{e}_j

<br /> v(t) = v_0 + \frac{1}{2} a t^2<br />

<br /> \gamma \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}<br />

<br /> \ddot{x} = \frac {d^2x} {dt^2}<br />

<br /> \overline{x} <br /> \hat{x}<br /> \check{x} <br /> \tilde{x} <br /> \acute{x} <br /> \grave{x} <br /> \dot{x} <br /> \ddot{x} <br /> \breve{x} <br /> \bar{x} <br /> \vec{x}<br /> \underline{x}<br />

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> ab\\<br /> a b\\<br /> a\! b\\<br /> a\, b\\<br /> a\: b\\<br /> a\; b\\<br /> \end{align*}<br />

<br /> \begin{multline*}<br /> a + b + c + d + e + f\\<br /> +g+h+i+j+k+l+m+n<br /> \end{multline*}<br />

<br /> \begin{gather*}<br /> a_1 = b_1 + c_1\\<br /> a_2 = b_2 + c_2 - d_2 + e_2<br /> \end{gather*}<br />

<br /> e^x = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n!} = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} (1+x/n)^n<br />

<br /> \int_{0}^{1} x dx = \left[ \frac{1}{2}x^2 \right]_{0}^{1} = \frac{1}{2}<br />

<br /> L = \int_a^b \left( g_{\it ij} \dot u^i \dot u^j \right)^{1/2} dt<br />

<br /> \iiint f(x,y,z)\,dx\,dy\,dz<br />

<br /> \lim_{\substack{x\rightarrow 0\\y\rightarrow 0}} f(x,y)<br />

<br /> \idotsint_\textrm{paths} \exp{(iS(x,\dot{x})/\hbar)}\, \mathcal{D}x<br />

<br /> A \alpha B \beta \Gamma \gamma \Delta \delta \dots \Phi \phi X \chi \Psi \psi \Omega \omega<br />

<br /> \Gamma^l_{ki} = \frac{1}{2} g^{lj} (\partial_k g_{ij} + \partial_i g_{jk} - \partial_j g_{ki})<br />

<br /> \sigma_{3} = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> 1 &amp; 0\\<br /> 0 &amp; -1<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)<br />

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> u &amp;= \ln x \quad &amp; dv &amp;= x\,dx \\<br /> du &amp;= \mbox{$\frac{1}{x}\,dx$} &amp; v &amp;= \mbox{$\frac{1}{2} x^2$}<br /> \end{align*}<br />

<br /> \newcommand{\pd}[3]{ \frac{ \partial^{#3}{#1} }{ \partial {#2}^{#3} } }<br /> <br /> i \hbar \pd{\Psi}{t}{} =<br /> - \frac{\hbar^2}{2 m} \ \pd{\Psi}{x}{2} + V \Psi<br />

<br /> \newcommand{\mean}[1]{{&lt;\!\!{#1}\!\!&gt;}}<br /> \newcommand{\braket}[2]{{&lt;\!\!{#1|#2}\!\!&gt;}}<br /> \newcommand{\braketop}[3]{{&lt;\!\!{#1|\hat{#2}|#3}\!\!&gt;}}<br /> <br /> \braket{\phi}{\psi} \equiv \int \phi^*(x) \psi(x)\,dx<br />

<br /> \begin{array}{l | c|c|c|c |} \ &amp;\overline{A}\,\overline{B}&amp;A\,\overline{B}&amp;\overline{A}\, B&amp;A\, B\\<br /> \hline<br /> \overline{C}&amp;0&amp;1&amp;0&amp;0\\<br /> \hline C&amp;1&amp;0&amp;1&amp;1\\<br /> \hline<br /> \end{array}<br />

<br /> \begin{equation*}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> \tau &amp;= \tau_1+\tau_2 = \sqrt{{\Delta t_1}^2-{\Delta x_1}^2}+<br /> \sqrt{{\Delta t_2}^2-{\Delta x_2}^2} \\<br /> &amp;= \sqrt{(5-0)^2-(4-0)^2}+\sqrt{(10-5)^2-(0-4)^2}\\<br /> &amp;= 3+3 = 6<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation*}<br />

- Warren
 
  • #55
It's pretty good -- acceptable, certainly -- but the old output still looked a bit better. *sigh*

Do you guys like the slightly larger size now?

- Warren
 
  • #56
I don't really see any obvious difference between the old output and the new, other than size, which I think is an improvement (or is that a sign I'm starting to get old, that I need larger fonts?). I think what you included in that last post is perfectly clear; no difficulty reading it, even though I'm probably more than twice the age of our average user by now. :rolleyes:
 
  • #57
Well the old LaTeX has more anti-aliasing than the current. I think that the old stuff looks too blurry because of that, on the other hand the current LaTeX has a few more jagged edges.
 
  • #58
chroot said:
It's pretty good -- acceptable, certainly -- but the old output still looked a bit better. *sigh*

I was looking at this link, there are loads of options to control the
postscript to image conversion, Very nice program indeed!

http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/text/#postscript

chroot said:
Do you guys like the slightly larger size now?

- Warren

That's fine, display resolution has increased quite a lot also in the last six years :smile:Regards, Hans
 
Last edited:
  • #59
chroot said:
Just for giggles, check out the LaTeX output as it was introduced almost six years ago. (Wow...)

- Warren

I opened it up and used the toolbar verticle tile to compare, side by side.

What you have is crisper than the older, and still in good proportion with good stroke widths.

It uses only about 5% more in verticle screen, and 7% in width than the older.


"Excellent! Way better than we had.
 
  • #60
As others have mentioned...
It looks nice and crisp [on an LCD]. The size is nice. It does look GREAT! Thanks!


The older one was a little blurrier... which didn't look as good on the screen.
However, it seems older one printed out better on my laser printer.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
evw and z didn't print out well for me. (Maybe it's just me.)

Would a lower gamma (say 0.4) be a compromise?
Maybe some antialiasing would help.
 
  • #61
As far as I can see:

1) You shouldn't need the gamma trick, (it reduces the anti-aliasing quality)
2) The anti-aliasing should be left doing it's work automatically and directly to transparent
3) dpi should be about 120 or so for a typical monitor.

The dpi (dots per inch) is important because small characters with thin lines are
automatically made thicker if they become thinner as one pixel.

So you could try something like this:

convert -channel RGBA -density 120 ps_file.ps -trim +repage -bordercolor none -border 3 ps_transparent.png

-channel RGBA renders to an anti aliased transparent image
-density 120 sets the dpi to 120Regards, Hans
 
  • #62
I used the following command:

convert -channel RGBA -density 128 -blur 0.1x0.36 ps_file.ps -trim +repage -bordercolor none -border 3 ps_transparent.png

to get the following image from this http://www.chip-architect.org/images/ps_file.ps" . There's also a small blur used now.

ps_transparent_01.png

Regards, Hans
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
The view here up through post #60 all look bad. Black background, and blurry to the extend of not being readable.
 
  • #64
inline LaTeX

erm :redface:

what's happened to the inline tex? …

(for magnetic moment \bold{\mu}):

(for magnetic moment mu):
 
  • #65
symbolipoint said:
The view here up through post #60 all look bad. Black background, and blurry to the extend of not being readable.

I have the same problem on one of my computers (an older one running IE6). Presumably that has to do with the fact that IE6 has some bugs displaying PNG images under some conditions.
 
  • #66
I'm seeing all Tex as black squares with some broken white dots. Is this the IE problem ? Nothing has changed on this machine.
 
  • #67
Mentz114 said:
I'm seeing all Tex as black squares with some broken white dots. Is this the IE problem ? Nothing has changed on this machine.

I'm pretty sure it is. They made some changes here on Physics Forums a few days ago and since then I'm having this problem on one of my computers that is running IE6. I didn't have that problem on that machine before and I don't have it now on other computers. Also, it is well known that IE6 has problems displaying PNG images that are witin certain size limits.
 
  • #68
OK, thanks Count. I'll have to copy out the Tex and render it elsewhere.

[edit] everything looks fine with FireFox. I like the bigger size. Another MS conspiracy to inconvenience me :wink:.
 
Last edited:
  • #69
Mentz114 said:
I'm seeing all Tex as black squares with some broken white dots. Is this the IE problem ? Nothing has changed on this machine.

It's probably related to the so-called IE Transparency bug
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/294714
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1645331,00.asp
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
itex ..Abc \mu \nu \gamma def

tex ..Abc \mu \nu \gamma def

The inline text seems out of wack.
 
  • #71
I've never been thrilled with inline LaTex.

EDIT: please don't get me wrong, it goes without saying that having LaTex is a great feature and Warren has done the PF community a great service in providing it to us.
 
Last edited:
  • #72
Yeah, the inline LaTeX is a little tough.. I can't just use a trim command. I have to trim it exactly to some known y dimension. I'll work on it.

- Warren
 
  • #73
The typesetting worked well a few days ago, even in I.E. 6 (which is what I often use where I am). But now the typesetting on the forum does not work, so I see only blotchy black rectanges, as when I try to view this:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=319942

If something, obviously, in the forums has changed, this change is not the right kind. Maybe change it back, or change it better in a way that typesetting with TEX or LaTex will work in I.E. 6.

(unfortunately, some of us do not have the option of using a different web browser )
 
  • #74
symbolipoint,

I understand your frustration, but we need to provide the best quality of service to the largest number of people possible. IE6 was released eight years ago, has not been updated in five years, and is unsupported by Microsoft. It has always contained a widely-known bug in its handling of transparency, which affects many websites, not just ours.

There was no way (that I could find) to use the previous back-end programs to create decent looking TeX, so I changed to another back-end. I will look for some work-arounds for the IE6 bug, but I'm afraid that you really need to be using more recent software. If you are unable to install software on your own computer, please talk to your administrators and get them to upgrade to software still recognized by Microsoft.

- Warren
 
  • #75
IE 6 (and IE 5.1 for Mac)

Hi Warren! :smile:

Congratulations on your 10,001st post! :biggrin:
chroot said:
IE6 was released eight years ago, has not been updated in five years, and is unsupported by Microsoft. It has always contained a widely-known bug in its handling of transparency, which affects many websites, not just ours.

… please talk to your administrators and get them to upgrade to software still recognized by Microsoft.

I'm using IE 5.1 for Mac, with OS 9.1 (not my usual software), and the LaTeX looks fine.

So don't upgrade … change to a Mac … even an old one! :wink:
 
  • #76
It seems the transparency bug in IE concerned PNG images.
There are apparently workarounds using CSS or maybe Javascript... but I'm not sure how this works for other browsers.

Could one use GIF images? (I recall there was some potential legal issues with GIF... but I assume that that has been resolved.)
 
  • #77
GIF images do not have an alpha channel -- pixels are either entirely transparent or entirely opaque. That will make the images look bad (as well as being larger, which is a major concern for us). And, of course, there's that pesky legal concern. GIF's dead, for good reason. :smile:

- Warren
 
  • #78
chroot said:
GIF images do not have an alpha channel -- pixels are either entirely transparent or entirely opaque. That will make the images look bad (as well as being larger, which is a major concern for us). And, of course, there's that pesky legal concern. GIF's dead, for good reason. :smile:

- Warren

While I personally prefer PNG, using GIF might not be as bad.Post #27 by Hans de Vries links to transparent-gif images by mathlinks (linked again here)
http://alt2.mathlinks.ro/latexrender/pictures/e/6/f/e6f7873e4868755812ca60c34dd13a22e4ea785b.gif
... which looks pretty good... and has a size of 1,706 bytes.
The current PF-png version (using the latex code in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2233960#post2233960") has a size 1,624 bytes... which isn't that much of a savings to prefer PNG to GIF.According to wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format
The US LZW patent expired on June 20, 2003.[16] The counterpart patents in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy expired on June 18, 2004, the Japanese counterpart patents expired on June 20, 2004 and the counterpart Canadian patent expired on July 7, 2004.[16] Consequently, while Unisys has further patents and patent applications relating to improvements to the LZW technique,[16] the GIF format may now be used freely.

...and concerning what used to be an http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/formats/#gif"
Finally for a long time the compression algorithm used by GIF was patented. Consequently it was not available for use by many image processing programs, such as ImageMagick. Thus very old IM programs will output GIF format images un-compressed, and thus using more disk space than it should. You can fix this using a GIF batch compression program such as "Gifsicle" or "InterGIF". However as the patent expired completely in mid-2004, the current release of IM has the GIF image compression re-enabled again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
chroot said:
symbolipoint,

I understand your frustration, but we need to provide the best quality of service to the largest number of people possible. IE6 was released eight years ago, has not been updated in five years, and is unsupported by Microsoft. It has always contained a widely-known bug in its handling of transparency, which affects many websites, not just ours.

There was no way (that I could find) to use the previous back-end programs to create decent looking TeX, so I changed to another back-end. I will look for some work-arounds for the IE6 bug, but I'm afraid that you really need to be using more recent software. If you are unable to install software on your own computer, please talk to your administrators and get them to upgrade to software still recognized by Microsoft.

- Warren

Well I read the forum on a computer owned by the company I work for... There is NO way the IT guys would let us change to a different version of IE. So for me, any posts with the Latex are completely illegible, useless to me...

I'm definitely not a computer geek - if there is something I can do to make the Latex legible (or even visible) please give me a clue.

Thanks
 
  • #80
gmax137 said:
Well I read the forum on a computer owned by the company I work for... There is NO way the IT guys would let us change to a different version of IE. So for me, any posts with the Latex are completely illegible, useless to me...

I'm definitely not a computer geek - if there is something I can do to make the Latex legible (or even visible) please give me a clue.

Thanks

They shouldn't let people use a 5 year old version of IE full of virus, worm, bank account
spyware and other vulnerabilities. It's the perfect way to get your company's PC's compro-
mised, turned into a zombie, get confidential data stolen, and so on...

Regards, Hans.
 
  • #81
gmax137 said:
Well I read the forum on a computer owned by the company I work for... There is NO way the IT guys would let us change to a different version of IE. So for me, any posts with the Latex are completely illegible, useless to me...

I'm definitely not a computer geek - if there is something I can do to make the Latex legible (or even visible) please give me a clue.
Are you allowed to install another browser, in addition to Internet Explorer? I'm using Firefox myself. Most computer geeks are. It's better than IE in many ways. It used to be a lot faster too, but I don't know if it's still true. I think IE may have caught up a bit. Google Chrome looks really good too. That's definitely the fastest browser.
 
  • #82
Fredrik said:
Are you allowed to install another browser, in addition to Internet Explorer? I'm using Firefox myself. Most computer geeks are. It's better than IE in many ways. It used to be a lot faster too, but I don't know if it's still true. I think IE may have caught up a bit. Google Chrome looks really good too. That's definitely the fastest browser.

Don't forget about Opera or Safari. No real reason to use IE anymore.
 
  • #83
gmax137 said:
Well I read the forum on a computer owned by the company I work for... There is NO way the IT guys would let us change to a different version of IE. So for me, any posts with the Latex are completely illegible, useless to me...

I don't understand this at all. Why won't they even let you upgrade to a more current version of IE? I could understand them choosing not to support other browsers (though, often that doesn't mean you can't install them, just that they aren't going to help you troubleshoot them), but not even to upgrade to a reasonably current version of IE?
 
  • #84
As recommended I installed firefox, and as others note the latex equations do look very nice. The only downside I've noticed so far is that the advertisements on the screen can be seen 'through' the forum text, making the text hard to read (how hard it is depends on the details of the ad). I don't remember this being a problem in IE, at least not in this forum site.

thanks for the tip on firefox. I left IE on 'my' computer so that if I need help from my IT dept they won't be too pissed off.
 
  • #85
Is it even possible to remove IE? I thought that you can't uninstall it if you run windows...
 
  • #86
Yeah, there's no need to remove IE, just don't use it unless IT comes looking.

As for ads, now that you have Firefox, if you're not interested in viewing them, go to their add-ons and find AdBlock Plus. Poof! No more ads. :biggrin:
 
  • #87
Or, become a PF contributor and see the site ad-free. :smile:

Seriously, though, I don't know what you mean about advertisements showing through text, but it doesn't sound right. Could you take a screen capture of it for me?

- Warren
 
  • #89
dx said:
Hi chroot,

I have a similar problem with Firefox, where the ads cover the post text. I attached a screenshot in post #5 in this thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=304395.

sometimes happens when there is a quote in the first post of a thread

Moonbear said:
As for ads, now that you have Firefox, if you're not interested in viewing them, go to their add-ons and find AdBlock Plus. Poof! No more ads. :biggrin:

poof, no more PF :wink:
 
  • #90
btw, you are logged in, you should not see that ad in the post. It's only for guests.
 
  • #91
Greg Bernhardt said:
poof, no more PF :wink:

If they're not clicking on them anyway, does it matter? I always thought ad revenue was dependent on people clicking the ads, not just putting up with them on the page. Is that wrong?
 
  • #92
Moonbear said:
If they're not clicking on them anyway, does it matter? I always thought ad revenue was dependent on people clicking the ads, not just putting up with them on the page. Is that wrong?

Slightly, now about 20% of the time the ads are impression based rather than click.
 
  • #93
Greg Bernhardt said:
Slightly, now about 20% of the time the ads are impression based rather than click.

Oh, okay. In that case, what chroot said...become a contributor to avoid ads. :biggrin:
 
  • #94
Greg Bernhardt said:
Slightly, now about 20% of the time the ads are impression based rather than click.

How do you count Google ads? They're ostensibly based on impressions, but their pricing is asymptotically equivalent to pricing per click.
 
  • #95
CRGreathouse said:
How do you count Google ads? They're ostensibly based on impressions, but their pricing is asymptotically equivalent to pricing per click.

20% of the time it's not a google ad :wink:
 
  • #96
Greg Bernhardt said:
Slightly, now about 20% of the time the ads are impression based rather than click.
Would it be better for PF if contributors would wait until all the adds come up before logging in.

I would do that.
 
  • #97
dlgoff said:
Would it be better for PF if contributors would wait until all the adds come up before logging in.

I would do that.

Thanks for the consideration Don, but you needn't bother yourself with that. Enjoy the community :smile:
 
  • #98
All things considered, I think the LaTeX looks much better now. A few things are still weird, but it doesn't matter much. x_n\rightarrow x is aligned wrong, and \implies looks messed up. But f(x_n)\rightarrow f(x) looks good, and \implies is just aligned wrong.
 
  • #99
Yeah, I need to work on the inline alignment, I know... argh.

- Warren
 
  • #100
I have a weird TeX issue that started recently. For some reason the LaTeX shows up in a black box with faint white outlines where the text is supposed to be. Something like it has been processed with an edge detection filter. I am sure it is just some random setting that got adjusted in one of my automatic updates, but does anyone know which setting and how to turn it back?
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
42
Views
10K
2
Replies
86
Views
13K
3
Replies
100
Views
11K
3
Replies
102
Views
10K
2
Replies
64
Views
15K
Replies
25
Views
4K
Back
Top