Sometimes I have a mathematical formula using, e.g.,  \dot{x} in a footnote but I have difficulties in recognizing the effective presence of a dotted variable (my fault, I know... to quote the poet "That's not the electric light, my friend\\That's your vision growing dim.").  Anyway, is it possible to use a heavier symbol for the dot that is usually used to indicate derivation w.r.t. time when used in a footnote?
123743
I'm writing up some notes that will be displayed on an overhead projector. The standard time-derivative \dot{x} produces a dot that is hard to see. Does anyone know of a package or have a macro that produces a (nice looking) larger dot? Similarly with \ddot{x}.  At the moment, I've been supplied with some ugly code that produces an ugly output:  \def\dt#1{{\buildrel  {\hbox{\LARGE . }} \over {#1}}}    % dot-over  \def\ddt#1{{\buildrel {\hbox{\LARGE ..}} \over {#1}}}    % double dot
102080
I am doing a project report and there is a certain kind of relation that I want to express between two quantities A and B. The relation is something like "A is neither greater than or less than B" (These two quantities are not numbers, they are kind of valuation profiles that I need in my project). Anyways, I wanted to create a symbol to denote this relationship. Something like the image attached. Can anyone please help in creating it. (Or let me know if such a symbol already exists). Thank You..
61375
I've started putting into practice the answer to . Yet I would like to change this so that there are brackets around the citations:   in the superscript in text,     in the superscript in footnote,  in the bibliography.   I've managed to get the first one and the last one working. The second one however, I don't know how to do this.   Note that I mainly write in english and in dutch, so I don't think there is much babel interference.  Also, would there be a way to order the footnotes so that first all ''normal'' \footnote{} are printed and below that all \sfcite{} citational footnotes (per page that is)?  Here's what I've managed to concoct:  \documentclass{article} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage[pdfborder={0 0 0}]{hyperref} \usepackage[citestyle=numeric-comp,sorting=none,hyperref]{biblatex} \usepackage{filecontents}  % No brackets around the number of each bibliography entry \DeclareFieldFormat{labelnumberwidth}{\textbf{[#1]}}  %--------------------------------------------------------------- % Essentially verbatim from Joseph Wright % http://www.texdev.net/2010/03/08/biblatex-numbered-citations-as-footnotes/ \makeatletter \ExecuteBibliographyOptions{citetracker,sorting=none}  \DeclareCiteCommand{\notefullcite}[\mkbibbrackets]     {\usebibmacro{cite:init}%         \usebibmacro{prenote}}     {\usebibmacro{citeindex}%         \usebibmacro{notefullcite}%         \usebibmacro{cite:comp}}     {}     {\usebibmacro{cite:dump}%         \usebibmacro{postnote}}  \newbibmacro*{notefullcite}{%     \ifciteseen         {}         {\footnotetext[\thefield{labelnumber}]{%             \usedriver{}{\thefield{entrytype}}\addperiod}}}  \DeclareCiteCommand{\sfcite}[\cbx@superscript]%     {\usebibmacro{cite:init}%         \let\multicitedelim=\supercitedelim         \iffieldundef{prenote}         {}         {\BibliographyWarning{Ignoring prenote argument}}%     \iffieldundef{postnote}         {}         {\BibliographyWarning{Ignoring postnote argument}}}     {\usebibmacro{citeindex}%         \usebibmacro{sfcite}%         \usebibmacro{cite:comp}}     {}     {\usebibmacro{cite:dump}}  \newbibmacro*{sfcite}{%     \ifciteseen         {}         {\xappto\cbx@citehook{%             \noexpand\footnotetext[\thefield{labelnumber}]{%             \fullcite{\thefield{entrykey}}\addperiod}}}}  \newrobustcmd{\cbx@superscript}[1]{%     \mkbibsuperscript{[#1]}%     \cbx@citehook     \global\let\cbx@citehook=\empty} \let\cbx@citehook=\empty \makeatother %---------------------------------------------------------------  \begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib} @article{ref1,     hyphenation = {american},     title = {Natural Products as Sources of New Drugs over the Last 25 Years},     author = {Newman, D.J. and Cragg, G.M.},     journal = {J. of Nat. Prod.},     volume = {70},     number = {3},     pages = {461--477},     year = {2007}} @article{ref2,     hyphenation = {american},     title = {Natural products as leads to potential drugs: an old process or the new hope for drug discovery?},     author = {Newman, D.J.},     journal = {J. of Med. Chem.},     volume = {51},     number = {9},     pages = {2589--2599},     year = {2008}} @online{ref3,     author = {Quintin, C.},     title = {Les eponges},     url = {http://christophe.quintin.pagesperso-orange.fr/Liste_Doc.html},     urldate = {2009-05-03} } \end{filecontents}  \addbibresource{\jobname.bib}  \begin{document} First citation.\sfcite{ref1,ref2} Some text\footnote{A footnote}.   \pagebreak Second citation\sfcite{ref1}, second citation\sfcite{ref2}, first citation.\sfcite{ref3} \printbibliography \end{document}
122694
I would like to use bold symbols in superscript equations. To do so, I use \displaystyle as in   \documentclass{standalone} \usepackage{amsmath} \begin{document}     $e^{\mathbf{A}t}=e^{\displaystyle \mathbf{A}t}=e^{{\displaystyle \mathbf{A}}t}$ \end{document}   The corresponding output is:    The first exponential is exactly what I'm looking for.  Now, if I add the cmbright package, the corresponding code  \documentclass{standalone} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{cmbright} \begin{document}     $e^{\mathbf{A}t}=e^{\displaystyle \mathbf{A}t}=e^{{\displaystyle \mathbf{A}}t}$ \end{document}   yields:    As one can see, in the left exponential the A symbol is not bold, and the other symbols are larger (as expected with \displaystyle).  I guess there is a pretty simple explanation about cmbright but I am not aware of it. Any clues to get the bold symbol AND the normal size with cmbright?
68166
One of the most useful tools in  is the use of square brackets around some physical quantity $q$ to denote its dimension as  $$[q].$$  However, the precise meaning of this symbol varies from source to source; there are a few possible interpretations and few strict guidelines. What conventions are there, who uses them, and when am I obliged to follow them?
122833
\documentclass{report} \begin{document} Text\footnote{text1} Text\footnote{text2}  \vbox{% \begin{itemize} \item X\footnotemark{} \item Y\footnotemark{} \item Z\footnotemark{} \end{itemize} } \footnotetext{a} \footnotetext{b} \footnotetext{c} \end{document}   generates:  Text^1 Text^2  * X^3 * Y^4 * Z^5  ------------- 1 text1 2 text2 5 a 5 b 5 c   How to recover \footnotetext numbering without manual numbering?  I assume, I know that I used \footnotemark n times, so I would like solution like (It is "pseudocode" of draft of an idea) :  \newcounter{tempcounter := footnotecounter - n} \footnotetext[ ++tempcounter ]{a} \footnotetext[ ++tempcounter ]{b} \footnotetext[ ++tempcounter ]{c}   Or other authomatic numbering solution. I don't want to manually correct this list each time I change footnotes in chapter.  P.S. I know putting list into vbox might look strange, please assume it's just a toy-example of environment that needs usage of \footnotemark+\footnotetext.
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}
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.
92662
(A) How do I shift the footnote vertically down 1 mm or so? (B) I want to introduce some additional space in between one foot note and the next one, and between the first footnote and the line that separates it from the regular text.  \vspace{1mm} inside the \footnote{} command does not solve this.  Using XeTex  \documentclass[12pt]{article} \usepackage[top = 1in, bottom = 1in, left = 1in, right = 1in]{geometry} \usepackage{amsmath, booktabs, graphicx, setspace} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage[hang]{footmisc} \begin{document} \begin{spacing}{1.9} TEXT.\footnote{\vspace{1mm} my footnote is here.} \end{spacing} \end{document}   (C) How do I prevent a long footnote from partly continuing in the next page? (D) I must also find a way to linebreak in footnotes without justifying the first line.  The footmisc package (with the 'hang' option) only makes the footnote symbol flush to the left. (E) I would actually like to put it a couple points away from the left margin. (F) And make the footnote number bold.
8393
In addition to the "divides" relation, denoted b | a, there is also a "divisible by" relation expressing the converse (a is divisible by b), often designated with three vertical dots.  Up until now, I've settled with  \mathrel{\vdots}     But there are two problems with the symbol:   It is too high relative to the numbers It is also somewhat too long   A search with  and the  doesn't reveal anything more suitable. How do I get a good looking "divisible by" symbol?
1789
Sometimes writing braces and omitting them produces the same result:  \tilde{\psi}  \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \pi}   vs  \tilde \psi   \mathrm e^{\mathrm i \pi}   Or (taken from Werner's comment below)   \frac{1}{2} vs \frac12   If that's the case, how bad for the quality of my code is omitting them? Of course, if one compiles a pair of formulas, there is no difference. But, since I ignore how TeX works, my point is: if one writes long codes with these habits,   doesn't TeX go somehow crazy because I'm not writing as it expects?   For instance, does it have any effect on how fast are long documents compiled? Any reason to keep them?
3980
I have  $m\times n = n + n + \dots + n$    in my text right now, but I would like to put a curly brace under the \dots to emphasize that there are m,n's involved. How would I do this?
27804
Is there mathematical sign that combines multiplication ($\times$) and division ($\div$) operations? Would that ever be used? For example $4({\times}{\div})2$ would give $8$ and $2$, like $4\pm 2$ would give $6$ and $2$.
89156
In a "math structures" class at the community college I'm attending (uses the book Discrete Math by Epp, and is basically a discrete math "light" edition), we've been covering some basic logic.  I've been reading some of the logic questions on here to get used to notation, etc.  However, when I came across the question , I didn't understand what the $\vdash$ symbol means.  It's not in Discrete Math by Epp, nor is it in my mom's old logic book from when she went to college.  Wikipedia's  page says it means "can be derived from" when used in a logic context.  However, that doesn't make any sense in the above question, as there is nothing on the left of the $\vdash$.  So, what does $\vdash$ mean, especially in the context of the question linked above?
17797
I have the following equation, where there is a lot of stuff under the sum symbol:  \begin{equation} d(\vec{x},\vec{y})=   \sum_{Z_{xy}\in\vec{Z}_{xy},\forall x\in\vec{x},\forall y\in\vec{y}}      f(Z_{xy}) \end{equation}   In the resulting document, I find it kind of hard to read. Is there a way to write the equation to make the result more readable, e.g. putting the stuff under the sum symbol on different lines?
40289
I'm making a table where columns are labelled with the property and the units it's measured in:  Length (m)  ||||  Force (N) |||| Safety Factor (unitless)  ||| etc...  I'd like not to write "unitless" on several columns...and I'm quite surprised I can't seem to find a symbol for it. Any suggestions?
105947
This example illustrates some conflict between xelatex and natbib- and footnote-generated superscripts.  The semi-colon between distinct citations is not typeset as a superscript, nor is the dagger.  The asterisk, however, looks fine to me.  Any suggestion on how to make these auto-generated superscripts look more normal?   Update Mostly fixed, see second screenshot below.  Update 2 Fully fixed!  Alter the MWE below with this code:  \DefineFNsymbols*{safestar}{{$*$}{\textdagger}{\textdaggerdbl}{\textsection} {\textparagraph}{\textbardbl}{$**$}{\textdagger\textdagger} {\textdaggerdbl\textdaggerdbl}{\textsection\textsection} {\textparagraph\textparagraph}{\textbardbl\textbardbl}} \setfnsymbol{safestar}   This comes  Achim Blumensath on the MinionPro mailing list, together with  for the footmisc package.  \documentclass[article, a4paper, 12pt, oneside]{memoir}  \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{xunicode} \usepackage{xltxtra} % c/o @wasteofspace, this is the "offending" line \defaultfontfeatures{Mapping=tex-text} \setmainfont{Linux Libertine O}  \usepackage[super]{natbib} \usepackage[perpage,symbol]{footmisc}  \let\sc\scshape \let\bf\bfseries \let\it\itfamily  \setlrmarginsandblock{23mm}{23mm}{*} \setulmarginsandblock{23mm}{198mm}{*} \checkandfixthelayout  \begin{document}  \bibliographystyle{plainnat} \setcitestyle{nature} \thispagestyle{empty}  This is a nice\footnote{(That is to say, minimal.)} example.\cite{lenat1976artificial,lenat1984and} Unfortunately, it has some problems.\footnote{From an aesthetic point of view.}  \bibliography{corneli}{}  \end{document}     But if we don't load , then we get this other slightly problematic result:   I guess I can live with the small and over-elevated asterisk.  It looks less bad when it follows a period.