Note that this is a different question from .  That aside, I was unable to find the markup for writing something like this:   As visible, I require the partial symbol to have a line across it.  I would also appreciate it if someone could mention the markup for a crossed normal derivative, too, as a bonus.  Thanks.
1659
I know what my symbol or character looks like, but I don't know what the command is or which math alphabet it came from. How do I go about finding this out?
94893
How do you write this in LaTeX:
38411
When i put the code $(f_{\mathcal{X}},f_{\mathcal{X}}^{\partial})$ I get the following:  But I want the subscripts to be aligned. How can I do this?
44312
I'm reading about inverse limits, and the notation sometimes requires some sort of index or set over which to take the inverse limit. It looks something like this:    How would I correctly TeX that? I tried something like             {\lim_{\longleftarrow}}_{H\in\mathscr{F}} but the arrow and the set are side by side, not one over the other.
8373
in questions, answers, and comments. Can we get something like this going on Stack Overflow?  I think it’d be appropriate as I at least pretty often want to write something like n^2 and would benefit greatly from prettier markup.
82786
I wish to write a paper about linguistics, so I thought about trying LaTeX. Sadly I couldn't figure out how to write the unique characters I need for my work, for example epsilon with a little tilde above it, i with two dots above it, velar nasal and so on.  I know I can write stuff like ó with \'{o}, but I couldn't figure out how to put the epsilon in there, or how to write more unique characters.
101346
The definition of a partial derivative is the "derivative of a multi-variable function relative to a single variable when all other variables are held constant".  But isn't the regular derivative (for one-variable functions) just a trivial case of this, where there are no other variables to hold constant? Why do we need the separate notation for partial derivatives (that is, writing $\displaystyle \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}$ rather than just $\displaystyle \frac{df}{dx}$)?
116712
When writing an integral, it seems like something should be done to separate the "d", as in \int f(x) dx, so as not to confuse it with a variable. I've seen it left as-is, bolded, and straightened. Even among those options there are several ways to accomplish each task; e.g., I could do a \mathrm or a \operatorname. What is the preferred method of dealing with the "d"?
70001
I have a very large equation that I need to write in multiple lines, but multiline is not working between parenthesis.  This is my LaTeX code:  \begin{multline}   e^{-y \lambda_n}    \left(    -\frac{1}{2} \cosh\left(y \lambda_n\right) \text{csch}\left(H \lambda_n\right) e^{(H  +  y) \lambda_n} \int_0^H \frac{\rho  e^{  -  K_2 \lambda_n}}{\lambda_n}\left(\hb_n(K_2,t)  -  \gb_n(K_2,t)\right) \, \dd K_2  +  \\   \frac{1}{4} \left(e^{2 y \lambda_n}  +  1\right) \left(\coth \left(H \lambda_n\right)  -  1\right) \int_0^H \frac{\rho  e^{K_1 \lambda_n}}{\lambda_n}\left(\gb_n(K_1,t)  -  \hb_n(K_1,t)\right) \, \dd K_1  +  \\   \frac{1}{2} \int_0^y \frac{\rho  e^{K_1 \lambda_n}}{\lambda_n}\left(\gb_n(K_1,t)  -  \hb_n(K_1,t)\right) \, \dd K_1  +  \\   \frac{1}{2} e^{2 y \lambda_n} \int_0^y \frac{\rho  e^{  -  K_2 \lambda_n}}{\lambda_n}\left(\hb_n(K_2,t)  -  \gb_n(K_2,t)\right) \, \dd K_2   \right) \end{multline}
74840
What are the options that can be considered an alternative to the old  symbol ?  I would like to denote a small break in the flow of the text, I noticed that this days many people like to just add more whitespace than the usual new line; but still, I would like to use a symbol, a more explicit glyph and I don't know if there are more "modern" ways to express this.
60022
I was wondering what the proper LaTeX code would be to display something like this:    You don't have to include the mathematical symbols, what is important is the structure.
85369
Is it possible to get a \neq but with a vertical bar instead of a slanted one? There are inequality operators like AMS's \gvertneqq that feature this kind of "not equal" but not without mixing it with other signs.  \documentclass[a5paper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsmath} \begin{document} \begin{align*} a&amp;\gvertneqq b\\ C&amp;\neq \varnothing \end{align*} \end{document}     So what I basically would like to have is the isolated symbol under the > in the \gvertneqq above. Particularly because I don't like the different slopes of the slashes in the second line and "≠∅" is quite a common combination.
29562
I tried l'Hospital but that will require a lot (and I mean A LOT!!!) of differentiating  Is there a shortcut? $$\mathop {\lim }\limits_{x \to 0} \left( {{1 \over {{{\sin }^2}x}} - {1 \over {{x^2}}}} \right)$$  Thanks in advance
543
Good Afternoon all,  I am trying to typeset a symbol that I have been using to represent the integral of a regulated function. This symbol is the standard integral symbol, with the letter "R" superimposed on it.  I have tried using \mathllap, \mathclap and \mathrlap (as suggested ), however none of these have managed to give the desired effect. When I tried doing it without the limits of integration, it got close to working, however then I was unable to have the limits to the right hand side of the symbol:  \mathop{\mathrlap{\int}R}_a^b f   Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you in advance!  Minimal Example:  \documentclass{article}  \usepackage{amsmath,mathtools}  \begin{document}  Take the regulated function $f$, we want to compare the Riemann integral, $\int_a^b f$ to the regulated integral $\mathop{\mathrlap{\int}R}_a^b f$ by taking sequences of step functions.  We will prove that $$ \mathop{\mathrlap{\int}R}_a^b f = \int_a^b f $$  \end{document}
88737
I have been trying to convince myself that it is consistent to replace basis vectors $\hat{e}_\mu$ with partial derivatives $\partial_\mu$. After some thought, I came to the conclusion that the basis vectors $\hat{e}_\mu$ were ultimately just symbols which represent what we think of as arrows, so it is not a problem to use a different symbol. The only requirement is that one can manipulate the $\partial_\mu$ in the same way as the $\hat{e}_\mu$.  However, raising/lowering indices seems to create an inconsistency. In switching our representation of the basis vectors, we make the substitutions:  $$\hat{e}_\mu \rightarrow \partial_\mu$$  $$\hat{e}^\mu \rightarrow dx^\mu$$  However, while we previously could write $\hat{e}^\mu=g^{\mu \nu}\hat{e}_\nu$, we fail to be able to write the same relationship in the new representation:  $$dx^\mu \neq \partial^\mu =g^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\nu}$$  My questions are:   Have I done something invalid here? If not, is it just an unwritten rule that one should never try to raise an index of a basis vector?  What is the motivation to write basis vectors as partial derivatives or differentials (for the tangent or cotangent space) as opposed to just writing some other symbol? Do we actually need the properties of a derivative or differential in our basis vectors? I am aware that the $\partial_\mu$ resemble the expression $\frac{\partial\vec{r}}{dx^\mu}$ which is a natural choice for the basis vectors $\hat{e}_\mu$, but the differentials seem to come out of nowhere.
103305
How can I typeset the following symbol for direct current (i.e. a = symbol where the lower line is dashed)?     The image above is an enlarged version, the size I need is like =, \approx, \simeq etc.
57458
Let $f,g:\mathbb R^n \rightarrow \mathbb R^n$, $(x_1,\dots, x_n)\mapsto f,g(x_1,\dots, x_n)$ be smooth functions with compact support.  Use the following notation: for an index $\alpha = (\alpha_1,\dots, \alpha_n)$ where $\alpha_i$ is a natural number, we denote by $D^{\alpha}$ the derivative with respect to $x_1$ $\alpha_1$ times, with respect to $x_2$, $\alpha_2$ times, and so on until $x_n$, $\alpha_n$ times.  Can we then say that $$\int_{\mathbb R^n} D^{\alpha} f(x_1,\dots, x_n) g(x_1,\dots, x_n)dx_1 \cdots dx_n = (-1)^{|\alpha|} \int_{\mathbb R^n} f(x_1,\dots, x_n) D^{\alpha} g(x_1,\dots, x_n)dx_1 \cdots dx_n$$ where $|\alpha| = \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i$.  Thanks you!