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.

  • #151
A better version?

<br /> \newcommand{\lineUp}{<br /> \begin{picture}(10,10)(0,0)<br /> \put(0,0){\line(1,1){10}} \put(2,0){\line(1,1){10}}<br /> \end{picture}<br /> }<br /> \newcommand{\lineDn}{<br /> \begin{picture}(10,10)(0,0)<br /> \put(0,10){\line(1,-1){10}}<br /> \end{picture}<br /> }<br /> <br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> \lineUp &amp; \lineDn \\<br /> \lineDn &amp; \lineUp<br /> \end{array}<br />
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
<br /> \newcommand{\lineUp}{<br /> \begin{picture}(10,10)(0,0)<br /> \put(0,0){\line(1,1){10}} \put(2,0){\line(1,1){10}}<br /> \end{picture}<br /> }<br /> <br /> \newcommand{\lineDn}{<br /> \begin{picture}(10,10)(0,0)<br /> \put(0,10){\line(1,-1){10}}<br /> \end{picture}<br /> }<br /> <br /> \begin{array}{ccccccc}<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mathrm{H}&amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mid&amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mathrm{C}&amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\lineUp \lineDn &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\mathrm{H}&amp;-&amp;\mathrm{C}\ \mathrm{C}&amp;-&amp;\mathrm{H}\\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mid\ \|&amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\mathrm{H}&amp;-&amp;\mathrm{C}\ \mathrm{C}&amp;-&amp;\mathrm{H}\\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp; \lineDn \lineUp &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mathrm{C}&amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mid&amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mathrm{H}&amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \end{array}<br />

Oh well... not too bad. The good thing is that you can play with the "picture" command to make it nicer.
 
Last edited:
  • #153
Originally posted by ahrkron
<br /> \newcommand{\lineUp}{<br /> \begin{picture}(10,10)(0,0)<br /> \put(0,0){\line(1,1){10}} \put(2,0){\line(1,1){10}}<br /> \end{picture}<br /> }<br /> <br /> \newcommand{\lineDn}{<br /> \begin{picture}(10,10)(0,0)<br /> \put(0,10){\line(1,-1){10}}<br /> \end{picture}<br /> }<br /> <br /> \begin{array}{ccccccc}<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mathrm{H}&amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mid&amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mathrm{C}&amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\lineUp \lineDn &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\mathrm{H}&amp;-&amp;\mathrm{C}\ \mathrm{C}&amp;-&amp;\mathrm{H}\\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mid\ \|&amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\mathrm{H}&amp;-&amp;\mathrm{C}\ \mathrm{C}&amp;-&amp;\mathrm{H}\\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp; \lineDn \lineUp &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mathrm{C}&amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mid&amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \ &amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\mathrm{H}&amp;\ &amp;\ &amp;\ \\<br /> \end{array}<br />

Oh well... not too bad. The good thing is that you can play with the "picture" command to make it nicer.

Yeah, I just started playing around with it last night.
 
  • #154
<br /> <br /> \newcommand{\lineUp}{\put(-10,-4){\line(1,1){20}}}<br /> \newcommand{\lineDn}{\put(-9,13){\line(1,-1){20}}}<br /> <br /> \newcommand{\dlineup}{\put(-10,0){\line(1,1){15}}\put(-6,-6){\line(1,1){15}}}<br /> <br /> \newcommand{\dlinedn}{\put(-9,9){\line(1,-1){15}}\put(-5,15){\line(1,-1){15}}}<br /> <br /> \begin {array}{ccccccccc}<br /> \ &amp;&amp;&amp;\ \ &amp;\mathrm{H}&amp;\ \ &amp;&amp;&amp;\\<br /> <br /> \ &amp;&amp;&amp;&amp;\mid&amp;&amp;&amp;&amp;\\<br /> \ &amp;&amp;&amp;\ \ &amp;\mathrm{C}&amp;\ \ &amp;&amp;&amp;\\<br /> <br /> \ &amp;&amp;&amp;\dlineup&amp;&amp;\lineDn&amp;&amp;&amp;\\<br /> <br /> \mathrm{H}&amp;-&amp;\mathrm{C}&amp;&amp;&amp;&amp;\mathrm{C}&amp;-&amp;\mathrm{H}\\<br /> <br /> \ &amp;&amp;\mid&amp;&amp;&amp;&amp;\mid\mid&amp;&amp;\\<br /> <br /> \mathrm{H}&amp;-&amp;\mathrm{C}&amp;&amp;&amp;&amp;\mathrm{C}&amp;-&amp;\mathrm{H}\\<br /> <br /> \ &amp;&amp;&amp;\dlinedn&amp;&amp;\lineUp&amp;&amp;&amp;\\<br /> <br /> \ &amp;&amp;&amp;\ \ &amp;\mathrm{C}&amp;\ \ &amp;&amp;&amp;\\<br /> <br /> \ &amp;&amp;&amp;&amp;\mid&amp;&amp;&amp;&amp;\\<br /> <br /> \ &amp;&amp;&amp;\ \ &amp;\mathrm{H}&amp;\ \ &amp;&amp;&amp;<br /> <br /> <br /> \end{array}<br />

Okay, this is more like it!
 
  • #155
Before you guys spend all your time reinventing the wheel, why don't you see if there's a LaTeX package to display chemical structures this way?

- Warren
 
  • #156
Maybe this one?

http://www.educat.hu-berlin.de/~voss/LaTeX/misc/chemistry.phtml

- Warren
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #157
Originally posted by chroot
Before you guys spend all your time reinventing the wheel, why don't you see if there's a LaTeX package to display chemical structures this way?

- Warren

But it's more FUN this way!
 
  • #158
This is a very long statement with some chemical formulas like <br /> \inline{H_2 O} stuck into gauge how the alignment tags are affecting the image placement. And I might as well include some methane here too, just for fun: \inline{C H_4}. I might even consider \inline{y = mx + b} or \inline{\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}} or even \inline{G_\textrm{diffeo}}. Don't worry about this text, since it's not relevant!

And just to make sure the display mode formulas still work:

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

versus including inline, like this \inline{e^x = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n!} = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} (1+x/n)^n<br /> }.

- Warren
 
Last edited:
  • #159
Let's see how this looks, embedding a little inline math inside a very long sentence: \inline{\sum_i x^i}. I think it should look okay! Let's find out. Some formulas for common chemicals are \inline{CH_4} and \inline{H_2 O}. They're more likely to put things like \inline{x^2} and so on, and I think that should look great! How about \inline{x} and \inline{x^2} and \inline{x_i}...

There, how's that Monique?

- Warren
 
  • #160
I think it looks very nicely inline! There is still a problem though with text subscripts, which seem to be lower than number subscripts, see the following example. I think the font might be done a tiny bit smaller too.

In grade school, we were taught that when a hydrogen atom shares its electron with a chlorine atom, a covalent bond is formed. It holds together the new molecule, hydrogen chloride. Since this compound exists as a gas at standard conditions, it is designated by the chemical formula \inline{HCl_{(g)} }. We also learned that when hydrogen chloride gas is dissolved in water, it becomes aqueous hydrogen chloride \inline{HCl_{(aq)} }. The proper name for this is hydrochloric acid.

Later on, we were informed that the molecule does not remain whole once in an aqueous solution. It ionizes to form \inline{H^+_{(aq)}} ions and \inline{Cl^-_{(aq)}} ions. We were left with this notion, relatively unaltered, until the Bronsted-Lowry unit, where we learned that the \inline{H^+_{(aq)}} ion actually reacts with a water molecule to form the hydronium ion: \inline{H_3O^+_{(aq)}}. Another way of looking at it is that the water molecule accepts a proton “donation” from \inline{\HCl_{(aq)} }. A crucial point in this unit was that a strong acid is defined as one that nearly completely dissociates (or is it ionizes?) in this manner.

Whoa! That’s the kicker. This means that the final products in the process of dissolving hydrogen chloride are almost entirely hydronium ions and chloride ions. This is the final “acidic” solution. It is the one that displays all of the empirical properties of an acid (i.e. conducts electricity, turns blue litmus red, has a pH < 7.0, etc.). These empirical properties can be attributed entirely to the hydronium ion. Put another way, in the final acidic solution, the so-called strong acid, \inline{HCl_{(aq)} }, is present in negligible quantities. So what is an acid, and how can we call \inline{HCl_{(aq)} } an acid? Again, I emphasize that for all “strong acids”, the aqueous acidic solution is composed almost entirely of hydronium ions (and the corresponding anions). If this is true, then does the term “hydrochloric acid” really have any meaning at all?
 
  • #161
I'm sorry Monique, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you suggesting that \inline{HCl_{(g)} } and \inline{CH_{(4)}} look different? They don't. Perhaps you're suggesting that \inline{HCl_{(g)} } and \inline{CH_{4}} look different? They ought to. One has parentheses in the subscript, which are "tall" symbols, while the other does not. Remember that TeX has to lay things out to leave room for superscripts! Putting parentheses around a subscript will necessary push it downwards.

Oh, and as far as the size... HCl and \inline{HCl} look pretty close to me.

- Warren
 
  • #162
This is just a test: \sin(\theta). Does this work? I imagine it will work nicely: \sin(\theta)

- 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