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 documentfrom 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 $\\cal{L}$).
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 ?
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 :
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...
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 :
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!
Comments
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Beginner?s LATEX
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.
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.
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 $\\cal{L}$).
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 ?
\\begin{equation}
\\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
\\end{equation}
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 :
\\begin{equation}
\\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
\\end{equation}
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.
*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:
Positive space (add space):
thinnest to thickest:
@, \\thinspace \\medspace \\thickspace \\quad \\qquad
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.
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
.
I much prefer the one in the "MathematicalPiTwo" font.
Now, what's that?
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.
How are you working with keyboard shortcuts ?
What do you want to do exactly?
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...
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 !
Cool, I didn't realize you could do that.
Nice way to learn LaTeX.
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!
%]|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.
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?
$$\\mit \\eta \\Omega \
m =\\left({\\matrix{1&0&0&0\\cr
0&-1&0&0\\cr
0&0&-1&0\\cr
0&0&0&-1\\cr}}\
ight)\\left({\\matrix{0&-{g}_{x}&-{g}_{y}&-{g}_{z}\\cr
{g}_{x}&1&-{\\omega }_{z}&{\\omega }_{y}\\cr
{g}_{y}&{\\omega }_{z}&0&-{\\omega }_{x}\\cr
{g}_{z}&-{\\omega }_{y}&{\\omega }_{x}&0\\cr}}\
ight)=\\left({\\matrix{0&-{g}_{x}&-{g}_{y}&-{g}_{z}\\cr
-{g}_{x}&0&{\\omega }_{z}&-{\\omega }_{y}\\cr
-{g}_{y}&-{\\omega }_{z}&0&{\\omega }_{x}\\cr
-{g}_{z}&{\\omega }_{y}&-{\\omega }_{x}&0\\cr}}\
ight)$$
It is VERY quick with Expressionist. How much time it could take you in pure TeX editing ? Try to find and correct the mistake in this. :P
Expressionist is an old commercial product, working only in Classic. Its successor is MathEQ, for OS X (which I don't have)