AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Technical Word processor with maths ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Technical Word processor with maths ? - Page 2

Quote:
Originally posted by PB
Learning LaTeX takes time.

I'll second this.

There's a steep learning curve to LaTeX, but it is *SO* very much worth it in the end.

Ya gotta admit, the final product is just too purty.

Edit: LyX, on the other hand... er... ow, my eyes? Good start, but it has a long way to go before I'd consider it polished enough for heavy everyday use. One to keep an eye on though.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
Declare these

\\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\\usepackage[francais]{babel}

before the \\begin{document}.

Thanks for the trick. The line

\\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

appears to be useless and it gives me a very bad looking output. I removed it and it appears to be fine. How can I make this macro permanent ?

Is there a way to use the keyboard as normal, for the special caracters like Ã©, Ã¨. Ã*. Ã¹, etc ?

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Quote:
Originally posted by Kali
Thanks for the trick. The line

\\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

appears to be useless and it gives me a very bad looking output. I removed it and it appears to be fine. How can I make this macro permanent ?

Is there a way to use the keyboard as normal, for the special caracters like Ã©, Ã¨. Ã*. Ã¹, etc ?

You're going to have to describe by what you mean as 'normal'... to strike an Ã©, for instance, I have to hit (on my US keyboard) opt-e, then e again.

You *can* still use the Macros setup, you know... For instance, I just set up in a few seconds that when Cmd-Opt-e (no shift) is pressed, I get Ã©, and another that gives me Ã¨ when Cmd-Opt-E (shift) is pressed. You can adjust them to be close to whatever you're used to.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Ok, I just found a trick to make the modification permanent. Edit macro, that's all.

But what about the letters accents ?

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
You're going to have to describe by what you mean as 'normal'... to strike an Ã©, for instance, I have to hit (on my US keyboard) opt-e, then e again.

You *can* still use the Macros setup, you know... For instance, I just set up in a few seconds that when Cmd-Opt-e (no shift) is pressed, I get Ã©, and another that gives me Ã¨ when Cmd-Opt-E (shift) is pressed. You can adjust them to be close to whatever you're used to.

I have a French canadian keyboard. I have keys for Ã¨, Ã*, Ã©, Ã¹, etc.

What I'm asking for, is a way to type Ã© in my text editor, to see it like it should be in the window, and make TeXShop compile the file without error message. You see, when there are many \\'e codes everywhere in the text file, it is very hard to read and to edit. I want the beast to know that an Ã© is an Ã©. That's all. I don't want to see \\'e in the text file.

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Quote:
Originally posted by Kali
\\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

appears to be useless and it gives me a very bad looking output. I removed it and it appears to be fine. How can I make this macro permanent ?

Welcome to the wonderful world of umpteen ways to do anything in LaTeX...

fontenc is a package that allows fonts to be included via their definition names (technobabble, ignore this explanation). To be honest, I'm not sure what subtleties of babel may need this for.

babel is the multi-lingual language support package. The old way of doing other languages was to include a french.sty or german.sty in your \\document header. (Ie, \\usepackage{french}) That's still the simplest. But the most fragile. babel fixes a lot of the problems with the .sty files.

For one thing, it lets you have multiple languages in one document, if you need to switch back and forth. Just list the languages you'll be using, with the default last in the list, such as \\usepackage[english, francais]{babel}. Now you can use either, but French is the default. You can also provide language lists to the entire document for *all* packages to pick up by stating \\documentclass[english,francais]{article}. Then you just need to say \\usepackage{babel} later on.

You can switch languages by \\selectlanguage{<language>}, or you can typeset just a snippet via \\foreignlanguage{<language>}[<text>}.

Why all this bother? Because each language has capitalization and hyphenation rules, as well as simple heading titles, and this way you can automatically observe them on the fly.

As to how to make this 'permanent', look into TeXShop's templates. They allow you to set up a blank document however you want. Saves tons of time.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Quote:
Originally posted by Kali
I have a French canadian keyboard. I have keys for Ã¨, Ã*, Ã©, Ã¹, etc.

What I'm asking for, is a way to type Ã© in my text editor, to see it like it should be in the window, and make TeXShop compile the file without error message. You see, when there are many \\'e codes everywhere in the text file, it is very hard to read and to edit. I want the beast to know that an Ã© is an Ã©. That's all. I don't want to see \\'e in the text file.

I was afraid you were going to say that.

I'm thinking... TextExtras. Let me look into it and get back to you.

Edit: Just so you know what I'm thinking, there are utilities that allow you set, on a per app basis, text replacement macros. So if you type Ã© in TeXShop, it will insert the proper code into the document on the fly. As for not *seeing* it, I'm afraid you need to talk to Richard Koch and friends, the developers. TeXShop is *not* WYSIWYG, and LaTeX was developed in the 70's before Unicode or even, really, international character support.

Edit2: Or... TeXShop lets you define the scripts to run your LaTeX typesetting job. You *could* have a simple script that strips out the accented characters and replaces them with the proper codes between TeXShop and pdflatex... you'd see Ã©, pdflatex would get {\\'e}. Of course, this would mean that you wouldn't be able to share these files or typeset them outside of TeXShop easily... Oooooh, so many ways to geek out over this.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Quote:
Originally posted by Kali
I have a French canadian keyboard. I have keys for Ã¨, Ã*, Ã©, Ã¹, etc.

What I'm asking for, is a way to type Ã© in my text editor, to see it like it should be in the window, and make TeXShop compile the file without error message.

Strange, when I said you can use your keyboard as always, I meant that you can type directly in the editor characters with accents. It just works and the compilation does not give errors. Oh, perhaps you should change the TeXShop preferences, Document->Encoding->Iso Latin 1.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kali
I installed iTeXMac and TeXShop and played with them.

To be honest, going to this LaTeX thing is a complete and total downgrade to me. It's horribly fastidious to write a simple equation with that system. I tried to write the Einstein equation :

$R_{\\mu\ u} - {1\\over 2} g_{\\mu\ u}R=-\\kappa T_{\\mu\ u}$

while it's so direct with Expressionist. GEEZ ! In Expressionist, it took me seconds to do ! I can't believe it !!

Actually, it is exactly this kind of writing that gives you total control on layout. If for some reason you want change (continuously) the size or the exact position of your subscripts, or your sub-subscripts, or even the font, you can do it with other special commands. However, LaTeX has some restrictions since it is essentially a set of macros on top of TeX. It is TeX, to be exact, that will leave you to do whatever you want in your document, if you know how to.

About writing speed: at the beginning, it is difficult to write formulas quickly. But when you get used to, it will be much faster and more pleasant.
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
Strange, when I said you can use your keyboard as always, I meant that you can type directly in the editor characters with accents. It just works and the compilation does not give errors. Oh, perhaps you should change the TeXShop preferences, Document->Encoding->Iso Latin 1.

PB, I just tried this, and it just stripped the characters out completely.

âbcdéfg became bcdfg.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
Strange, when I said you can use your keyboard as always, I meant that you can type directly in the editor characters with accents. It just works and the compilation does not give errors. Oh, perhaps you should change the TeXShop preferences, Document->Encoding->Iso Latin 1.

HOLLY S*** ! IT WORKS !

Thanks a lot !

Another thing : I can't find the Wedge product in the floating palette (ya know, the reverse v, outer product for mathematicians).

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Quote:
Originally posted by Kali
HOLLY S*** ! IT WORKS !

Thanks a lot !

Another thing : I can't find the Wedge product in the floating palette (ya know, the reverse v, outer product for mathematicians).

You're going to kick yourself.

Try \\wedge

Edit: There are *hundreds* more symbols, etc, than the palettes show, and new packages can create new ones all the time. (One of the reasons I tend to like rolling my own LaTeX code - no GUI gets them all.) The best synopsis I've seen of the basic installed ones is in Goossens, Mittelbach and Samarin's _A LaTeX Companion_, pgs 218-222. Five pages of nothing but symbols and their commands. Since these are produced by mathematicians for mathematicians, if you don't know what the command is, try just \\<nameofsymbol>. Usually it works, within reason. Those three little dots in an upward facing triangle? \\therefore. \\subset, \\superset, \\leftarrow, \\forall, \\exists, \\sum, etc... they actually make it readable like natural language in many cases.

\\forall x, y \\in S : x = y^3

Easy!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
PB, I just tried this, and it just stripped the characters out completely.

âbcdéfg became bcdfg.

If you have an open document, TeXShop will not apply the encoding modification to that. You first set the encoding in preferences, and then you open a new document to test.
Did that. Set it, made a brand new doc, didn't work.

Since this isn't a problem for me, I'm not going to worry about it.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
You're going to kick yourself.

Try \\wedge

Cool. It works. But why it isn't in the palette ?

And what about fonts ? I need to use a script font for the "lagrangian" of field theory. It doesn't show in the palette of TeXShop. I have the impression TeXShop could beef-up its palette a lot.

In iTeXMac, there are many fonts and symbols showing in the palette, but I'm unable to use them. Especially amsfonts and mathrsys which I need.

How do you compare iTeXMac and TeXShop, by the way ? Which one do you prefer ?

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

For some online documentation, look this or this. I am going to sleep now...
Quote:
Originally posted by Kali
Cool. It works. But why it isn't in the palette ?

See above.

GUI palettes have to be stripped down to only the most common items to be of any real use, otherwise they just become unwieldy and cumbersome to use. So unless you're just doing basic equation typesetting, you're not going to find what you want, most of the time.

Hence, learning the commands. Luckily, as I also pointed out, it's generally easy to figure out, and there is a *lot* of documentation out there. PB's links and my book recommendation will get you far. Also, Kopka and Daly's _A Guide to LaTeX2e_ is excellent.

Quote:
And what about fonts ? I need to use a script font for the "lagrangian" of field theory. It doesn't show in the palette of TeXShop. I have the impression TeXShop could beef-up its palette a lot.

It's actually in there... I assume the Lagrangian script you're talking about is the mathcal font. (Or, if it's the High German, try \\frak{text}).

But, this is exactly my point - no GUI will get you everything, much better to learn the commands. You'll be quicker in the long run as well.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
....

And why the professional journals require TeX? Because it is way superior in every aspect from anything easily available to science people. That's why scientists use TeX/LaTeX, that's why professional journals require TeX/LaTeX.

Nobody requires you to do anything because it will make your life better. They require you to do things to make their lives better. The professional journals that require papers be submitted in TeX do so because it makes the job of the typesetter easier, not to make the author's life better. To believe otherwise is to betray a naïveté greater than that of believers in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
And, as I stated before, I haven't seen a professional journal *require* TeX submission in several years.

PDF is by far the outstanding winner for preferred format, with LaTeX a distant second, and Word only twice in the last er, 10 years. PDF makes it trivial for the final typesetter, as long as you use the proper LaTeX style or Word template that they provide.

The vast majority of the people in tech submission use LaTeX because they do, indeed, choose to for ease and elegance over tools like Word. PDF frees you to use the tool you prefer, and most people still prefer LaTeX for good reasons.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
GUI palettes have to be stripped down to only the most common items to be of any real use, otherwise they just become unwieldy and cumbersome to use. So unless you're just doing basic equation typesetting, you're not going to find what you want, most of the time.

But, this is exactly my point - no GUI will get you everything, much better to learn the commands. You'll be quicker in the long run as well.

I don't agree with this. I can make any equation with a single palette, customised in Expressionist. Most of the time, I use macros with the keyboard, but all commands are on my customised palette. All symbols and math expressions are there and it's not so clumsy. So it is clear to me that it's possible to implement something like this in , say, TeXShop. Its palette can (and should) be beefed up, with maybe few pop-up.

Another example : in iTeXMac, there is a right drawer which shows many symbols. More than in TeXShop. It's far away from the perfection, but it's a little bit better than TeXShop. Especially for the special symbols I use from times to times, but not often enough to remember all the time.

Maybe I should post a pict of my Expressionist palette here, but I'm not sure to know how to do it. I'm not at my own computer right now anyway.

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
And, as I stated before, I haven't seen a professional journal *require* TeX submission in several years.

PDF is by far the outstanding winner for preferred format, with LaTeX a distant second, and Word only twice in the last er, 10 years. PDF makes it trivial for the final typesetter, as long as you use the proper LaTeX style or Word template that they provide.

Unfortunately, in the social sciences and humanities it isn't uncommon for journals to require submissions in Word or WordPerfect format (with Word usually preferred). It is also not uncommon for journals in these areas to refuse submissions in TeX/LaTeX format. Very frustrating, all in all.
"Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson
"Time goes, you say? Ah no! Alas, Time stays, we go." -H. A. Dobson
Quote:
Originally posted by Kali
I don't agree with this. I can make any equation with a single palette, customised in Expressionist. Most of the time, I use macros with the keyboard, but all commands are on my customised palette.

Note what I highlighted.

Now, stop and consider that LaTeX is an extensible system with packages and styles (and fonts) floating in from god knows where. It is, if not impossible, highly impractical, for an app designer to let the user customize for *ANY* potential thing to come down the pipe in a graphical format. The Macros in TeXShop take over for this in most ways.

Quote:
All symbols and math expressions are there and it's not so clumsy. So it is clear to me that it's possible to implement something like this in , say, TeXShop. Its palette can (and should) be beefed up, with maybe few pop-up.

It could be, but do you really mean to say *ALL* symbols? No, just the ones that Expressionist already defines. And that may be great for most folks, but mathematicians are a wily bunch, and you don't want to see what some physicists dream up for notation... Expressionist plain won't work for them. LaTeX will, in textual form. A GUI panel won't. No app designer can predict every possible LaTeX style or package that will come down the pipe, the best they can do is provide an extensible user-customizable method for macros, either to be clicked on in a menu or in a button palette. A glyph palette is quite a bit harder to integrate given LaTeX's odd font support. (Not impossible, but more than slightly difficult.) TeXShop's palette could certainly be beefed up, but as we all know, too much beef drives you mad.

Quote:
Another example : in iTeXMac, there is a right drawer which shows many symbols. More than in TeXShop. It's far away from the perfection, but it's a little bit better than TeXShop. Especially for the special symbols I use from times to times, but not often enough to remember all the time.

Yup, I have a little document from here that I keep either on screen or as a print out that's my rare symbols cheat sheet.

Quote:
Maybe I should post a pict of my Expressionist palette here, but I'm not sure to know how to do it. I'm not at my own computer right now anyway.

Cmd-shift-4 will get you a crosshairs cursor. Select the window from corner to corner, and a PDF of that window image will be placed as a file on your Desktop. Upload it to a web server somewhere (.Mac, etc), and provide an Image link in a post here. Simple, no?

Edit: Just to nail this point home a bit more, here's a document that lists *most* known symbols in LaTeX. It's 2.4MB in size. The math section *alone* is 28 pages of symbols.

Do you *really* want to try and use a palette suite with all that??

TeXShop could do more, but what you like someone else has no need for, and vice versa. I really do think that they got the basics well and the rest is handled better by the Macros.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
For entirely more LaTeX information than you'll ever need, try http://www.tug.org/.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
And, as I stated before, I haven't seen a professional journal *require* TeX submission in several years.

PDF is by far the outstanding winner for preferred format, with LaTeX a distant second, and Word only twice in the last er, 10 years. PDF makes it trivial for the final typesetter, as long as you use the proper LaTeX style or Word template that they provide.

The vast majority of the people in tech submission use LaTeX because they do, indeed, choose to for ease and elegance over tools like Word. PDF frees you to use the tool you prefer, and most people still prefer LaTeX for good reasons.

Nowhere did I say that every professional journal requires submissions in TeX. Certainly I have never been required to submit TeX files. That is true of most journal submissions. High energy physics, however, is one field in which you submit your papers in TeX or you don't get published.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Nowhere did I say that every professional journal requires submissions in TeX. Certainly I have never been required to submit TeX files. That is true of most journal submissions. High energy physics, however, is one field in which you submit your papers in TeX or you don't get published.

Nor did I say that nobody required it. Only that the circles I run in tend not to anymore. Heck, even the NSF is preferring PDF these days.

Maybe one day they'll get with the program.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Nobody requires you to do anything because it will make your life better. They require you to do things to make their lives better.

Did I say otherwise? I said they use both LaTeX since it is superior in every aspect, typesetting and workflow included.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha

It's actually in there... I assume the Lagrangian script you're talking about is the mathcal font. (Or, if it's the High German, try \\frak{text}).

Or better \\mathfrak{L}. Furthermore, with the euler package ( \\usepackage{euler} ), you have the command \\mathscr{L}, which will put in place the L from the eusm family. The mathrsfs package ( \\usepackage{mathrsfs} ) will transform \\mathscr{L} into something different (it will use the rsfs font family). Obviously, you cannot use at the same time both euler and mathrsfs. At least not directly.

I remember using some special fraktur fonts at the time, but this was under plain TeX; very nice for Lie groups and algebras. I don't know how easy is it to use them in math mode in LaTeX.

OK, I stop here before degenerate this thread into typography. A few links that you (Kali) may find useful:

TeX for the impatient

LATEX pour les d?butants sous MacOS X

Beginners LATEX
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Nor did I say that nobody required it. Only that the circles I run in tend not to anymore. Heck, even the NSF is preferring PDF these days.

Maybe one day they'll get with the program.

NSF has actually relaxed its PDF requirements. When FastLane first went up, you were allowed to submit your proposals only in PDF. PDFwriter-generated PDF files were explicitly forbidden. Today, you are allowed to submit M$Word documents which are then converted to PDF by NSF's Fastlane servers. Most of my colleagues now submit their proposals to NSF Fastlane in M$ Word format.
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
Or better \\mathfrak{L}. Furthermore, with the euler package ( \\usepackage{euler} ), you have the command \\mathscr{L}, which will put in place the L from the eusm family. The mathrsfs package ( \\usepackage{mathrsfs} ) will transform \\mathscr{L} into something different (it will use the rsfs font family). Obviously, you cannot use at the same time both euler and mathrsfs. At least not directly.

When I try those commands :

\\mathfrak{L},
\\mathscr{L},

etc, I get error message and the text doesn't compile.

I want to write a lagrangian with traditional symbole PLUS the script L.

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Quote:
Originally posted by Kali
When I try those commands :

\\mathfrak{L},
\\mathscr{L},

etc, I get error message and the text doesn't compile.

The first command will work if you have \\usepackage{amssymb} in your document. It produces a gothic L. For the second one you need \\usepackage{mathrsfs}. It produces a calligraphic L (different from the standard LaTeX calligraphic \\cal{L}). The two packages can be used at the same time, and the corresponding commands are for math mode only (between 2 $, like$\\cal{L}$). Quote: Originally posted by PB The first command will work if you have \\usepackage{amssymb} in your document. It produces a gothic L. For the second one you need \\usepackage{mathrsfs}. It produces a calligraphic L (different from the standard LaTeX calligraphic \\cal{L}). The two packages can be used at the same time, and the corresponding commands are for math mode only (between 2$, like $\\cal{L}$).

Thanks. It works. But the scripted L is too italicised. The normal lagrangian symbol is not so slanted to the right. Is there another one ?

I much prefer the one in the "MathematicalPiTwo" font.

I really much prefer to have a more complete palette in TeXShop. I hate to be dependant of documentation. I find myself losing too much time searching for special codes and commands. Also, the key shortcuts in TeXShop are too restrictive. TeXShop impose the command key for each shortcut (or is there another way ?). I can't configure the macros as I really want. How are you working with keyboard shortcuts ? Are you using TeXShop anyway ?

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

O man, I'm frustrated now. I wrote the Euler-Lagrange equation, with this code :

\
\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{-g}} \\partial_{\\mu}( \\sqrt{- g} \\frac{\\partial \\mathscr{L}}{\\partial(\\partial_{\\mu}\\varphi_{ i})})-\\frac{\\partial\\mathscr{L}}{\\partial\\varphi_{i }}=0
\

After compilation, it look right, except I don't like the spacements. But suppose there's a small error in the equation, how do you edit the code, it's unreadable ! I'm losing time just to search the right place I should insert my cursor !! What are the tricks ? I suppose I shouldn't write the equation like the one above ? Maybe this :

\

\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{-g}}

\\partial_{\\mu}

( \\sqrt{- g} \\frac{\\partial \\mathscr{L}}{\\partial(\\partial_{\\mu}\\varphi_{ i})})

-\\frac{\\partial\\mathscr{L}}{\\partial\\varphi_{i }}

= 0

\

This look likes too much computer code to me. And it's just about a small equation. I'm often wrtiting MUCH bigger one. It's so easy in Expressionist.

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Then use Expressionist.

*shrug*

Everyone has their favorite tool.

Personally, I write LaTeX 'like computer code' because computer code is written that way for a reason: it's legible.

Spacing in math mode can be fine tuned with the following:

thinnest to thickest:

thin, med and thick can be replaced with \\, \\: \\; respectively

Negative space (remove space):
thinnest to thickest:
\
egthickspace \
egmedspace \
egthinspace @!

thin can be replaced with \\!

Really, a good text on this subject would do a lot for you.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Quote:
Originally posted by Kali
The normal lagrangian symbol is not so slanted to the right. Is there another one ?

You can of course use other fonts, whatever you have, but it would be complicated, especially for beginners. See Mathinst
.

Quote:

I much prefer the one in the "MathematicalPiTwo" font.

Now, what's that?

Quote:

I really much prefer to have a more complete palette in TeXShop. I hate to be dependant of documentation. I find myself losing too much time searching for special codes and commands.

We discussed that again, that's LaTeX, it will take time, at least some months. If you need to write something now and quickly, use what you know best, not LaTeX. I am sorry, I cannot help you on that.

Quote:

How are you working with keyboard shortcuts ?

What do you want to do exactly?

Quote:

Are you using TeXShop anyway ?

When I have to write something in LaTeX yes, although sometimes I like the return to the roots (X11 editors and xterm; there you write everything from scratch). Unfortunately for me, I have lately to use MS Word (no choice on that, no too often fortunately); not only that, but due to some formal requirements I have to break basic typography rules... You know, Word makes that very easy. Never mind...
LOL !

Guess what ?

I can do the equation into Expressionist, copy it and paste it into TeXShop. It's all TeX code (plus some commentaries in red))!!! It all compiles fine ! And guess what ? I can copy the TeX equation (with commentaries) back to Expressionist and edit it !!! ALL IN WYSIWYG ! Maybe this IS the trick !

Example : the Euler-Laggrange equation from Expressionist is this :

%]|Expr|[#>b___})'# b'4<2^" *~: ;bP8&c5521^<b R("/0g}_}} $^.V| %|^"!Symbol^:!m_<c!$1)## b'4<b R(": /0g}_} <2(".VL}(%.V,H$^.V^:!m| %|_$^j^: i_,I}}}& b!( b"0 b#8 b$@ b%H b&P!WW}}/0<2(".VL}(".V$^:!j|
%|^: i_}},]0}& b!( b"0 b#8 b$@ b%H b&P!WW}]|[ $$\\frac {1}{\\sqrt {-g}}\\ {\\partial }_{\\mu }\\left({\\sqrt {-g}\\ \\frac {\\partial L}{\\partial ({\\partial }_{\\mu }{\\varphi }_{i})}}\ ight)-\\frac {\\partial L}{\\partial {\\varphi }_{i}}=0$$ ROFL ! Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M. 13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M. OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8 Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M. 13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M. OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8 *LOL* I think you hit the nail on the head then. Cool, I didn't realize you could do that. Nice way to learn LaTeX. My brain is hung like a HORSE! My brain is hung like a HORSE! Refresh your browser, I made a little mistake ROFLMFAO ! Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M. 13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M. OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8 Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M. 13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M. OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8 Quote: Originally posted by Kali LOL ! Guess what ? I can do the equation into Expressionist, copy it and paste it into TeXShop. It's all TeX code (plus some commentaries in red))!!! It all compiles fine ! And guess what ? I can copy the TeX equation (with commentaries) back to Expressionist and edit it !!! ALL IN WYSIWYG ! Maybe this IS the trick! Glad to hear it works that way for you! Look this. I made a path integral in few clicks with Expressionist. Copy it to TeXShop. It gives this code : %]|Expr|[#>b___})## b'4" Symbol^: ;bP8&c552t"!*~:!,]<c" #)## b'4| %|<b R(&$^g(!: mn}_<c!$1($:!x,H: s:!,I}}<2("d$^x_^: m}(":!d: s}}| %|:!!!<2("d$^x_^: n}(":!d: s}}}_}:!d: s}& b!( b"0 b#8 b$@ b%H b&P!WW}| %|^$^s^:!;%1_^$^: ;bP8s^:!;%2_}}& b!( b"0 b#8 b$@ b%H b&P!WW}]|[
$$\\tau =\\int_{{\\sigma }_{1}}^{{\\sigma }_{2}}\\sqrt {{g}_{\\mu \ u }\\left({x(\\sigma )}\ ight)\\frac {d{x}^{\\mu }}{d\\sigma }\\,\\,\\frac {d{x}^{\ u }}{d\\sigma }}d\\sigma$$

Imagine typing that code yourself (without commentaries). It will be MUCH longer, I can bet on this.

It look nice after compilation. So this IS the proof something better can be implemented for LaTeX, with a WYSIWYG mode.

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Mac mini 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, NVidia's 9400M.
13" MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, NVidia's 320M.
OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.8

Quote:
Originally posted by Kali
Look this. I made a path integral in few clicks with Expressionist.

By the way, where do you get Expressionist from? I cannot find something to download. Is it a commercial product?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Mac Software
• Technical Word processor with maths ?
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Technical Word processor with maths ?