I would like to display all inline maths expressions in displaystyle, but without typing \displaystyle{...} everytime I insert a math expression into a block of text.  How can we do that at the preamble level? I would also need a command to temporarily turn off the automatic displaystyle in some cases, if  a math expression is a bit to big for the text. Here's a MWE to try: \documentclass[11pt,letterpaper,twoside]{book} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{lmodern} \usepackage[total={6in,10in},left=1.5in,top=0.5in,includehead,includefoot]{geometry} \usepackage{microtype} \usepackage[nodisplayskipstretch]{setspace} \setstretch{1.1} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{mathtools} \usepackage{tensor}  \begin{document}  This is a simple test; $\sqrt{y(x)} = x_1^3 - a \, x^2$ or $\displaystyle{\sqrt{y(x)} = x_1^3 - a \, x^2}$.  Or again this is a test: $c^{-2}$ is of order $\displaystyle{c^{-2}}$.  This is a tensor: $\tensor{T}{_{\mu \nu}^{\lambda}}$ or $\displaystyle{\tensor{T}{_{\mu \nu}^{\lambda}}}$.  \end{document}
120934
I have a question about the \displaystyle command. So every time I write a quiz or test, in order to make a fraction, limit, integral, etc. look decent, I have to do something like,  $\displaystyle\frac{2}{3}$    or   $\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-5x}dx$.    If I do not input this command, the text is absurdly small. Is there a package or command I can put in my template so that it just automatically assumes to do the \displaystyle command?  I run MiKTeX on a Windows computer. I have decent LaTeX knowledge, but am foggy in templates.
3763
I would like to have two displayed equations, broken by a short paragraph, but with aligned equal signs (as if using the align environment).  Is there some way to "break" the align environment temporarily?
72728
% What to do here   \begin{document}   This is good integration.   $$\displaystyle \int x dx = \frac{x^2}{2}$$  \end{document}    I don't know much about LaTeX so I am going to need some spoon feeding.   I want text to appear in normal font. But math to appear in AMSEuler Font.  I don't want to make any changes inside the document.
46150
To write some documentation, I would like the ability to define a command such as  \showcase{x^{y}\in\Omega}   which expands to something roughly equivalent to  \verb|x^{y}\in\Omega| &amp; $x^{y}\in\Omega$ \\   so that I can show what the latex code looks like and how does it show on the document.  Now I now that it isn't really possible to use \verb for this because it's really fragile and you can't pass arguments from a macro to it. But, assuming that I'm not trying to write anything crazy in the argument to \showcase (e.g. braces are always balanced, I don't care much if spaces are collapsed, no %'s inside), is there a way to define such a command?  Update  \detokenize does (almost) exactly what I want. Take the following example  \newcommand\showcase[1]{{\ttfamily\detokenize{#1}} &amp; $#1$} \begin{tabular}{cc|cc} \showcase{x^{y}}      &amp; \showcase{\hat{x}, \bar{x}} \\ \showcase{x_{y}}      &amp; \showcase{f\colon X \to Y} \\ \showcase{x'}         &amp; \showcase{\sqrt{x+2}} \\ \showcase{x''_{2}}    &amp; \showcase{2 &lt; x \leq 4} \\ \showcase{A^{1}_{2}}  &amp; \showcase{\frac{a+b}{c+d}} \\ \showcase{3\pi/4}     &amp; \showcase{\int_{0}^{1} x^{2} \,dx} \\ \showcase{x\in\Omega} &amp; \showcase{A \cup B \subseteq C \cap D} \end{tabular}   Which produces the output:    My minor quibbles are that:   The double '' seems to have been collapsed into a " I find mildly annoying the spaces after control sequences. I know why they are there, but could there be a way to remove the space if it is not followed by a letter or number? (Or, conversely, if followed by { or _)
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.
118226
Personally I think the default size of square brackets in latex math mode is too small. For example, for an interval [a,b], I would prefer \big[\big] as opposed to plain []. My question is, what can I do to change the default size of [], so that when I input [] in math mode, they will show up automatically the same size as \big[\big]?  Right now I'm defining a new command called \b{} which takes one argument and inserts it between \big[ and \big], but the code looks ugly. Apparently \newcommand (or \def or \let) does not allow [ to be refined.  Any help is much appreciated. Thanks.
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?
2701
\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article} \title{Title} \author{Author} \begin{document} \maketitle $\{ n \mid n\ \mbox{is\ even} \}$  \end{document}   Since it is a relatively rare occasion for me to display upright letters in math mode, I kind of ignored this problem for a long time. But recently, when I prepared my tutoring notes, I found manually creating space is annoying. I thus wonder if there is any way out?   I would also like to know if it is possible to display upright letters without commands such as "\mbox" or "\textup" in math mode?
46086
I'd like to change spacing around binary operators and this issue is discussed there:   Is there way how to change spacing in math and displaymath separately?
100506
I see bold and italics button but no inline code while it uses quite an uncommon syntax (back ticks, `` - the syntax is good, just not very obvious). It would be convenient to have this button.  Related but not the same:
106053
I have been using LaTeX for quite some time, but I find the math writing to be a bit frustrating. It seems to take me a relatively long time to code-write long math expressions, and sometimes it's hard to see where { start and end.  I am interested in writing as fast as possible.  Is code-typing each symbol really the fastest way? Is there any good program (in the spirit of Word's MathType) that enables producing math expressions by button clicking, that you recommend?
51650
I am trying to display vectors as bold and italic. The command \mathbf sets the letters non-italic. I also googled a bit and stumbled upon \mathbf{\em y} or \mathbfit{y}, which all didn't work.  I hope someone can help me on this.
48182
In , a way of getting \hfill-like behaviour in the align environment is described, but for my purposes, I need one that works in the equation environment. (I want to display some commutative diagrams next to each other, but for some reason, tikzcd does not like being inside align.)    Why does TeX ignore \hfill inside displayed mathematics? How can this be worked around?   I suppose I could in principle just put the various blocks inside $...$, but for consistency, it would be probably be better to have all displayed mathematics in equation or similar environments.
56711
This thread evoked from .  \documentclass{article}  \usepackage{unicode-math} % This causes the question mark bug % This code requises unicode-math % How can you use the code without unicode-math -package? \setmathfont[BoldFont={latinmodern-math.otf}]{latinmodern-math.otf} \setmathfont[range=\mathscr,Scale=MatchUppercase]{Asana-Math.otf} \usepackage{tikz} \usetikzlibrary{tikzmark,decorations.pathreplacing,calc} \newcommand\MyText[4][0pt]{% \begin{tikzpicture}[overlay, remember picture] \draw [decoration={brace},decorate,thick]    ( $ ({pic cs:#3}|-{pic cs:#2}) + (#1,1.3ex) $ ) --       node[anchor=west,xshift=5pt,text width=5cm] {#4}    ( $ (pic cs:#3) + (#1,0) $ ); \end{tikzpicture}% }  % I have defined question like this \usepackage[framemethod=tikz]{mdframed} \newtheorem{question}{Question} \mdfdefinestyle{que}{   linecolor=cyan,   backgroundcolor=cyan!20, } \surroundwithmdframed[style=que]{question}  \begin{document} \begin{question} Lorem ipsum? \end{question} \end{document}   I am thinking why you need the  package for the TikZ code.  Why does the TikZ code require unicode-math package?
110308
How can I use color in a mathematical expression without losing horizontal spacing?    \documentclass{article} \usepackage{xcolor} \definecolor{red}{HTML}{dd0000} \begin{document} \[3+(-5)-2+3\] \[3+(-5){\color{red}-2}+3\] \end{document}
20492
Mathematical operators, such as function names, should be set in roman type, not italics. Latex already has commands for some operators, including \max, \min, and \log.  How can I define additional such commands?
87259
Most commands in Latex are written with the arguments inside braces following the command: \command{arguments}. But text formatting options, like \em, or \scriptsize are usually written inside the braces, like {\em some italicised text}. Why is this? What makes these commands different? I'm particularly asking because it seems to make standardisation - of which LaTeX really appears badly in need - more difficult.