Is Mandatory LaTeX Implementation on PF Beneficial for Members?

  • Context: LaTeX 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implementation of LaTeX on Physics Forums (PF) and its potential benefits for community members. Participants explore the functionality, usability, and challenges associated with using LaTeX for mathematical expressions and equations within forum posts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express excitement about the new LaTeX feature, highlighting its potential to enhance the forum's capabilities.
  • There are discussions about the ease of use of the new LaTeX code, with some members sharing their attempts and experiences.
  • Several participants report issues with the display of LaTeX images, noting that they may not show up in previews or topic reviews.
  • Concerns are raised about the server's performance and the generation of LaTeX images, with some participants experiencing delays and unexpected substitutions of images.
  • Some members question the reliability of the LaTeX implementation, citing instances where the displayed output does not match the input code.
  • Participants share tips and corrections for using LaTeX effectively, including specific commands and syntax adjustments.
  • There is a mention of caveats regarding the current limitations of the LaTeX feature, including issues with image generation and potential platform dependencies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the excitement surrounding the LaTeX implementation, but multiple competing views remain regarding its reliability and usability. The discussion includes both positive feedback and concerns about technical issues, indicating that the topic is still unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved issues with image generation, potential platform-dependent behavior, and discrepancies between input code and displayed output. These factors contribute to ongoing uncertainty about the effectiveness of the LaTeX feature.

  • #91
<br /> \overline{y} <br /> \hat{y}<br /> \check{y} <br /> \tilde{y} <br /> \acute{y} <br /> \grave{y} <br /> \dot{y} <br /> \ddot{y} <br /> \breve{y} <br /> \bar{y} <br /> \vec{y}<br /> \underline{y}<br />

<br /> A\yleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \yrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br />
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
OMG, I'm a moron! newrepy.php should work now.

- Warren
 
  • #93
Originally posted by chroot
<br /> \overline{y} <br /> \hat{y}<br /> \check{y} <br /> \tilde{y} <br /> \acute{y} <br /> \grave{y} <br /> \dot{y} <br /> \ddot{y} <br /> \breve{y} <br /> \bar{y} <br /> \vec{y}<br /> \underline{y}<br />

<br /> A\yleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \yrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br />
 
  • #94
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Maybe overzealous on the search-and-replace on those x's, eh?

<br /> A\xleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \xrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br />

Okay.. new replies should work. The post preview and topic reviews now show a better message:

LaTeX image not viewable here.

This should mean the end of the dreaded "LaTeX image being generated." message.

- Warren
 
  • #95
This is valid latex:

<br /> <br /> \eta_{\mu\nu}<br /> <br /> <br />

This is not:

\yourmom

- Warren
 
Last edited:
  • #96
Originally posted by chroot
This is valid latex:

<br /> <br /> \eta_{\mu\nu}<br /> <br /> <br />

This is not:

\yourmom

- Warren
 
Last edited:
  • #97
How about non-antialiased?

<br /> A\xleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \xrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br />
 
  • #98
And now on the darker gray background...

<br /> A\xleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \xrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br />
 
  • #99
Higher resolution... maybe scaling will make it appear nice.

<br /> A\xleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \xrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br /> [/B][/QUOTE]

- Warren
 
  • #100
Let's try scaling..

<br /> A\xleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \xrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br />
 
  • #101
And now on the other background..

<br /> A\xleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \xrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br />

Ambitwistor, what do you think?

- Warren
 
  • #102
Scaled even more aggressively...

<br /> A\xleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \xrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br />

- Warren
 
  • #103
Experimenting with antialiasing..

<br /> A\xleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \xrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br />

- Warren
 
  • #104
Experimenting with antialiasing.. some more.

<br /> A\xleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \xrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br />

- Warren
 
  • #105
Experimentation is fun...

<br /> A\xleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \xrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br />

- Warren
 
  • #106
Whoops :)

<br /> A\xleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \xrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br />

- Warren
 
  • #107
Once more, white background..

<br /> A\xleftarrow{n+\mu-1}B \xrightarrow[T]{n\pm i-1}C<br />

- Warren
 
  • #108
We have a weiner! I'm just antialiasing to a color halfway between the two background colors.

- Warren
 
  • #109
<br /> L = \int_a^b \left( g_{\it ij} \dot u^i \dot u^j \right)^{1/2} dt<br />
 
Last edited:
  • #110
\displaystyle{\overline{\overline{A}B+A \overline{B}}\ =\ \overline{A\oplus B}}
 
  • #111
<br /> \alpha \beta \cdots \psi \omega<br />
 
  • #112
<br /> \alpha \beta \gamma \cdots \chi \psi \omega<br />
 
  • #113
Okay folks...

All the caveats are fixed, I think. Topic review and reply preview now work properly.

:smile:

- Warren
 
  • #114
<br /> \Gamma^l_{\it k i} = \frac{1}{2} g^{\it l j} (\partial_k g_{\it i j} + \partial_i g_{\it j k} - \partial_j g_{\it k i)<br />
 
  • #115
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
How about the 'feynman' or 'feynmf' packages?

Diagrams are nice ...

<br /> \begin{picture}(80,80)(0,0)<br /> \put(0,0){\vector(4,3){30}}<br /> \put(28,21){\vector(0,1){30}}<br /> \end{picture}<br />

<br /> \begin{picture}(160,160)(0,0)<br /> \qbezier(40,80)(80,120)(100,80)<br /> \end{picture}<br />

Great idea -- drawing vector diagrams to illustrate force addition and so on would be very useful! I'll look into these packages. :smile:

- Warren
 
  • #116
How's it looking, Ambi?

- Warren
 
  • #117
\begin{array}{l | cr |} \ &amp;\overline{A}&amp;A\\\hline \overline{B}&amp;0&amp;1\\B&amp;1&amp;0\\\hline\end{array}

A Karnaugh map
 
  • #118
\begin{array}{l | c|c|c|c |} \ &amp;\overline{A}\,\overline{B}&amp;A\,\overline{B}&amp;\overline{A}\, B&amp;A\, B\\\hline \overline{C}&amp;0&amp;1&amp;0&amp;0\\\hline C&amp;1&amp;0&amp;1&amp;1\\\hline\end{array}
 
Last edited:
  • #119
Excellent stuff guys -- I'm going to include some of these in the "learn by example" thread in General Physics.

BTW, I have already introduced the software to the public -- I'm pretty sure all the kinks have been worked out. Please let me know if *anything* malfunctions!

- Warren
 
  • #120
Ambi,

That's unfortunately because your browser is too stupid to check if the image has changed. I'm going to see if I can somehow force the images to not be cached, but I'm not sure it's possible. It's not the forum software causing the problem, it's your browser.

BTW, I'm using Mozilla Firebird, and it seems smart enough to always check the images.

- Warren
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
190K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 766 ·
26
Replies
766
Views
743K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K