How I can use this style of L in math mode?
55952
As can be seen in above picture, there are lots of fonts or font styles that can be used in math mode.  What are all the fonts or font styles I can use in math mode, and which packages are required in order to use them?  Let's assume I'm using standard Computer Modern or Latin Modern (lmodern) fonts.  Edit: It'd be great to see examples of what the different styles look like, probably via images.    I'm not interested in a reproduction of the picture, which can be found at ; the picture is for illustration purposes only. Furthermore, this is supposed to become a one-catches-all question for questions like the beforementioned. If I actually were looking for these fonts, I wouldn't just lazily ask here but look e.g. at  , tables 3.14 and 6.4 first.)
103529
How do you get the \delta\rightarrow 0 underneath the line underneath the limit.  This is what I have so far  \underline{\lim\limits}_{\delta \rightarrow 0}
8869
I would like to construct what Unicode calls "white curly brackets" that are in addition scalable. They look like ⦃ (≈{|) and ⦄ (≈|}) and have Unicode codepoints U+2983 and U+2984.  unicode-math has them as \lBrace and \rBrace, but (1) I don't presently use XeTeX or LuaTeX and (2) their design (shown in  on pages 3-4) is not to my liking: the brace part is too fat for my taste, and I would like the vertical bar to not leave any protrusions. I am trying to have them visually match the parentheses \llparenthesis, \rrparenthesis, \llbracket, and \rrbracket from stmaryrd.  Right now I am using a makeshift definition, which is sufficient for now, but the symbols don't scale (in general or with \left/\right). Here is sample code:  \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage[only,llbracket,rrbracket,llparenthesis,rrparenthesis]{stmaryrd} % for comparison with 4 similar parenthesis symbols \usepackage{accsupp} % for ensuring the right Unicode codepoint upon pasting  \newcommand*{\llbrace}{%   \BeginAccSupp{method=hex,unicode,ActualText=2983}%     \textnormal{\usefont{OMS}{lmr}{m}{n}\char102}%     \mathchoice{\mkern-4.05mu}{\mkern-4.05mu}{\mkern-4.3mu}{\mkern-4.8mu}%     \textnormal{\usefont{OMS}{lmr}{m}{n}\char106}%   \EndAccSupp{}% } \newcommand*{\rrbrace}{%   \BeginAccSupp{method=hex,unicode,ActualText=2984}%     \textnormal{\usefont{OMS}{lmr}{m}{n}\char106}%     \mathchoice{\mkern-4.05mu}{\mkern-4.05mu}{\mkern-4.3mu}{\mkern-4.8mu}%     \textnormal{\usefont{OMS}{lmr}{m}{n}\char103}%   \EndAccSupp{}% }   \begin{document}  \noindent ok: \(\displaystyle\llbrace abc \rrbrace\) \(\textstyle\llbrace abc \rrbrace\) \(\scriptstyle\llbrace abc \rrbrace\) \(\scriptscriptstyle\llbrace abc \rrbrace\)  \noindent ok: \(\displaystyle \llbrace \frac{a}{b} \rrbrace\) \(\textstyle\llbrace \frac{a}{b} \rrbrace\) \(\scriptstyle\llbrace \frac{a}{b} \rrbrace\) \(\scriptscriptstyle\llbrace \frac{a}{b} \rrbrace\)  \noindent incorrectly scaled (\verb|\scriptsize|): {\scriptsize\(\llbrace abc \rrbrace\)} (large magnification required)  \noindent incorrectly scaled (\verb|\tiny|): {\tiny\(\llbrace abc \rrbrace\)}  \noindent \verb|\left| and \verb|\right| not possible before \verb|\llbrace| and \verb|\rrbrace|: \\ \indent \(\llbrace \left\llbracket\left\{\left[(a) \cdot bc^{2^3}\right]^4\right\}^5\right\rrbracket \rrbrace\) % Note: This is also not possible with \llparenthesis and \rrparenthesis from stmaryrd.  \noindent for comparison: \(\llparenthesis x \rrparenthesis, \llbracket x \rrbracket, \llbrace x \rrbrace; (x), [x], \{x\}\)  \end{document}   Lines 1 and 2 look just right with the present setup. Lines 3 and 4 demonstrate that my definitions don't scale. Lines 5a/b gives an example of where I would like to be able to use \left and \right. Line 6 juxtaposes different types of parentheses for visual comparison.  Is there an easy way to scale the glyphs I have constructed myself? Or is designing new glyphs the only way? While the vertical part of my glyphs doesn't leave any protrusions, the "brace part being too fat" part of my problem isn't being addressed by my code. With this in mind: I recognize that it might not be that easy to make the brace part of the glyph thinner (though if you can, more power to you), but I think that any solution that addresses the scaling problem for any manually constructed glyph cluster will be a valuable contribution to the community.    For a slightly different setup (original example code) with  \RequirePackage{fix-cm} \documentclass[12pt]{memoir} \usepackage{fixltx2e}[2006/09/13] \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{txfonts} \usepackage[only,llbracket,rrbracket,llparenthesis,rrparenthesis]{stmaryrd} \usepackage{accsupp}   in the preamble, one needs \mkern-5.7mu in the fourth argument to \mathchoice for "correct" scaling. To see what goes wrong in that case, it's best to include a line such as discontinuous small symbols in a footnote\footnote{\(\scriptscriptstyle\llbrace \frac{a}{b} \rrbrace\)}. This might help a potential answerer test things out.
5686
I'm very familiar with how symbols display differently in inline mode (with $ ... $) vs. how display math shows them (with \[ ... \] or $$ ... $$).  Two examples would be with limits  $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}f(x)$   vs.  \[ \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}f(x) \]   and with sums  $\sum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$   vs.  \[ \sum_{n=1}^{x} n^2 \]   My Question is:     How do you display these things in inline mode (with all the nice inline formatting) as if they were in display mode ?   The inverse -- how to display things in display mode as if they were in inline mode -- is also of interest.
66979
Like this:     Tried P_{30:20^{\ulcorner}}, but I want the \ulcorner to be more near to the text.
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?
117405
I recently looked up  on How to color delimiters in Math Mode, and so I decided to test my LaTeX knowledge by trying to define a new appropriate command: \leftcolor{color}&lt;delim symbol&gt; and \rightcolor{color}&lt;delim symbol&gt;.  The MWE is as follows:  \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{xcolor} % \newcommand*\leftcolor[2]{%  \color{#1}\left#2\normalcolor% } \newcommand*\rightcolor[2]{%  \color{#1}\right#2\normalcolor% } % \begin{document} \begin{equation*} % \leftcolor{red}(\frac{a}{b}\rightcolor{red})^n \neq \left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^n % \end{equation*} \end{document}   The problem can be seen in the result shown below:        I clearly see that the exponent positioning is wrong, but I have no clue on how LaTeX puts that symbol in this way, because I followed the only option possible for the correct coloring (even after searching on the xcolor documentation I didn't find anything related to this topic).  My guess is that the effective size of the delimiter is "faked" in such a way that the compiler finds more correct to put the exponent as one normal size delimiter rather than the extended one.  I don't know if there is some plain TeX or LaTeX string to help about this situation, because the most common solution in these cases involves the making new delimiters such as:  \customdelim{\frac{a}{b}}^n   % these commands are not present in this case   The fact is that I don't request this kind of macro because I want to be able to switch directly from one color to another as a specific argument.
34668
\documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \begin{document} \begin{equation*}   X_i =    \begin{cases}     \left[\begin{smallmatrix}       0 \\ 1 \\ 2     \end{smallmatrix}\right]     &amp;     \text{if $i$ is even;}     \\     \left[\begin{smallmatrix}       2 \\ 1 \\ 0     \end{smallmatrix}\right]     &amp;     \text{otherwise.}   \end{cases} \end{equation*} \end{document}   This is the LaTeX code that I wrote based on a cases environment. There's no space between the matrices on the right. What's the best way to add some vertical spaces to separate them?    p.s. This is a simplified form of my original writing, so I cannot just accept suggestions like 'use a matrix transpose to transform the column vector into a row vector.'
105349
What is the difference between \big[ (or equivalently \big() and \bigl[? Is it always necessary to mention l (left) and r (right)?
57658
I'm thinking of modulo, but really don't know how to start? A hint would be sufficient.     Thanks, Chan
90178
I want to use math mode in lstlisting. How do I do that? How to put tab in this mode?  \begin{document}  \begin{lstlisting}[frame=single]                % Start your code-block module main() enumerated States {$S_0$,$S_1$,$S_2$,$S_3$} integer c; initial : c = 0 and States = $S_0$; endmodule \end{lstlisting}  \end{document}
67825
I want to get the following:    I tried the following  \[    a(i,k) \leftarrow     \min\Big\{0, r(k,k) + \sum_{i^{'} | i^{'}\notin \{i,k\}}\max\{0, r(i{'},k)\}\Big\} \]   and got    How can I make the part under the summation extend to left and right without making a space between plus and max as in the first figure?
3907
It's easy to make subscripts in math mode: $a_i$.   How do I make a subscript outside math environment, likethis?
925
I have the following code  \begin{align} s'(t) &amp;= -\beta s(t) i(t)\\ i'(t) &amp;= \beta s(t) i(t) - \gamma i(t)\\ r'(t) &amp;= \gamma i(t), \end{align}   and I want to enclose this with a bracket like a case, but maintaining the numbered equations.
107622
I want to use a slanted \sum symbol denoting a different meaning from summation. How do I get a slanted \sum symbol?
63277
I have the following diagram:    However, this looks a bit ugly, I would like a version that looks a little bit better. For example, size the last arrow such that the T_\phi is moved to the right.  This is the code which I am using to do this:  \begin{align*}   \xi \colon &amp;\lb \to \mathcal{L}(\hh)\\   &amp;\phi \mapsto T_\phi. \end{align*}   Where \lb and \hh just give the names for those spaces. Does anybody have a suggestion how I would improve the look of this function definition?
98083
How can I make the curly braces on TikZ to label the x and y as in this picture?