I naively entered the following math-mode/text mix in a theorem environment, but the way LaTeX treats the parenthesis doesn't seem right. Especially upright math formulas in italic text parenthesis look strange, even though this is exactly how I would write it in regular text. Also the parenthesis in the end seem weird in contrast to the big upright one in the formula.   Is this a problem in LaTeX that is supposed to be circumvented manually? If so, what is the best way to make this look more consistent?  \begin{conj}   Let $a$ ($b$) be $3$ ($5$). (Recall that $c=\Big( \AImatrix(C) \lor \AIclause(C) \Big)$.) \end{conj}
121849
My question is, basically, the same as the one in : how do I force all parentheses in my document to be upright, without replacing them with some commands "by hand"?  Unlike the linked question, my main concern are slanted environments (i.e., theorems). At the moment, I'm dealing with elsarticle, which uses \itshape which is not covered by the solutions on above link (and I don't see how I could modify them to do so), nor by the embrac package (explicitly stated in Section 9).  MWE:  \documentclass{article}  \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}  \begin{document}  \begin{theorem} I want parenthesis (around this text) to be upright. \end{theorem}  \end{document}   I can, of course, write  I want parenthesis {\rm (}around this text{\rm )} to be upright.   or define some commands for the upright parentheses and use them. However, changing the parentheses in the LaTeX code can lead to errors (for example, missing some of them and introducing inconsistency) and puts a burden of focusing on that detail, instead of the text I'm writing, so I'd prefer some automated way (like the one shown for \emph in the linked document).
104083
Is there a standard TeX or LaTeX code for a symbol that bears the same relation to  \prec\prec that \ll bears to &lt;&lt; ?  (And how do I get TeX code to get rendered in a question posted here?  I'm accustomed to writing things like $\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n!}$ on math.stackexchange.com and having it look the way you'd expect it to.)
44253
Is there a canonical way to typeset such quantities in equations and inline math?  \documentclass{article} \begin{document} $Re$, $Nu$ are clearly not an option. $\mathit{Re}$, $\mathit{Nu}$ appear ok to me. \end{document}
71661
How do I present vertical (columnar) multiplication and addition in LaTeX. Like this:       3 8 4 x     5 6 ---------   2 3 0 4 1 9 2 0 --------- 2 1 5 0 4   I used the "array" environment. But i have right align problem. Any other best ideas?
105092
I've been trying to create the 7 I'm used to writing by hand in LaTeX with a horizontal line through the middle. This seems like it should be a simple thing to do, but I don't see any native support for this. This is the look I am trying to get:
90191
I want to be able to  write the following in LaTeX      We make the further assumption that \begin{equation} \label{eqn:assumption} There is a bounded linear operator     $B:X\to X^*$ such that $B^*=B$ and the operator $JB$ is an extension of $T'(0)$\end{equation}   and get a nice output, in such a way that this whole chunk of text along with the math can be referenced later. Of course I can write text inside the equation environment using \text{}, but when I tried this the spacing was all wrong. Can anyone suggest a solution to this?
3945
What is the easiest way to superscript text outside of math mode?  For example, let's say I want to write the $n^{th}$ element, but without the math mode's automatic italicization of the th.  And what if I still want the n to be in math mode, but the th outside?
30869
Does anyone knows how can I use square brackets instead of parenthesis when numbering my equations?  I used this command:  \begin{equation} y = 2x \end{equation}     The number appears on the right hand side like (1) I want to make it [1].  Does anyone have any ideas?
50793
I want to do regular long division in latex. See also:   Is there a latex macro for this ?  Edit: I actually want to use it in mathjax, is this possible ?
48875
I have a LaTeX editing environment that does some assistive stuff such as auto-indenting, closing parentheses, etc.  However, one of the things that it does is unknown to me, and is difficult to search for. If I type an empty set of braces, it replaces them with  {}&lt;++&gt;   If I type two empty sets, for example when I'm setting up a fraction \frac{}{} what I actually get is  \frac\left\{ } \right\}&lt;++&gt;}&lt;++&gt;   Is this a problem? What does &lt;++&gt; do?  Edit: This is using
21691
In a LaTeX article, the math characters are more "curvy" than the text characters:  \documentclass[12pt]{article} \begin{document}  $x^2 + y^2 = z^2$ \end{document}     In a beamer presentation, the math characters do not have the same curves:  \documentclass{beamer} \begin{document} \begin{frame}  $x^2 + y^2 = z^2$ \end{frame} \end{document}     Question  How can I get the beamer math to look just like the article math?  I would prefer if the solution was a single line (that I could place at the top of my LaTeX file) as opposed to something that needs to appear next to every piece of math.
64234
A number of related questions have already been asked about this issue:       and even    But I'm still confused by the conflicting suggestions that have been given so far. So I'm trying again.  Which should be the preferred command to produce a displayed equation in my LaTeX documents?  So far the suggestions indicate that one should use \[ ... \], maybe \begin{equation*} ... \end{equation*}, or maybe even the gather* or align* environments from amsmath.  And one should definitely avoid using either $$...$$ or the eqnarray environment.  Now I have to say that, from a language perspective, I have a strong preference for the equation* environment because it is less cryptic than the \[ ... \] notation and it is  the most accurate.  So, is it fine to use equation*? Maybe only after loading amsmath? Or should the equation/equation* environment be redefined to something else so that spacing, package support, or whatever is improved?
115688
This has probably been answered somewhere, but I can't find it from some searching. I sometimes want to write something like Leb for lebesgue measure, and I would like it to be non-italicized, so I usually use \text{Leb} in math mode, but this has the annoyance that it changes inside of an italicized (ams) theorem environment. I usually just hack this and write \text{\emph{Leb}} but clearly this is not ideal.   Is there a replacement for \text that won't inherit this italicizing? Alternatively, is there a more clever hack, in which I can make my macro detect if its going to be italicized and then automatically put in the \emph hack? Clearly the first would be ideal, but the second would also be acceptable.
88417
I am stuck with a LaTeX glitch! I am making an exercise on sequences and series. I have to write down an expression for the general form of a sequence for which I need large delimiters. I tried various ways but it did not work.   Here is a minimal example.  \documentclass[a4, 14pt]{extarticle}  \begin{document}  \begin{align}  \[ \left{        \frac{(-1)^{n}}{n}     \right}_{n=1}^{\infty}  \]  \end{align}  \end{document}   I tried $$ .... $$, \[ ... \], and \begin{align} ... \end{align} but all returned errors on compiling. I don't know how to fix this!
50724
For mathematics, is it ever disadvantageous to use \left(  and \right)  in equations?  I can't see any way that doing this would hinder the typesetting, so why isn't () just converted into \left( \right) automatically? This would save a lot of typing.  Cheers!
6575
Why does the addition of a \left and \right introduces an extra space around the formula? Specifically, why do $\cos(\theta)$ and $\cos\left(\theta\right)$ render differently?  Is there a way to use resizable delimiters without introducing the spurious spaces?  Why did Knuth design it like this?  Edit: This occurs too, if \operatorname{MYOP} or some other operator, like \lim, \min etc. is used. (This edit is basically to make it easier to find this answer.)
115952
I stumbled upon those two ways of writing a mathematical expression inside a text:    I could easily do the first one by writing the expression inside $s, but what about the second one? If I use \begin{displaymath}, it looks like this:    What is the correct command for this?