Timeline for Cell sizing and labeling for $\textit{MaTeX}$ equations
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 29, 2016 at 18:04 | comment | added | Szabolcs |
Please do make sure that you use version 1.2.0 of MaTeX, released just a few days ago! It corrects some subtle sizing bugs. Check it with MaTeX`Developer`$Version.
|
|
| Feb 29, 2016 at 18:03 | answer | added | Szabolcs | timeline score: 6 | |
| Feb 28, 2016 at 9:09 | history | edited | J. M.'s missing motivation♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Feb 27, 2016 at 23:42 | answer | added | martin | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 27, 2016 at 15:55 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackMma/status/703609437282504705 | ||
| Feb 27, 2016 at 12:08 | comment | added | Quantum_Oli |
MaTeX has the options FontSize and Magnification both of which can be used to achieve consistent resizing of text.
|
|
| Feb 27, 2016 at 3:59 | comment | added | Jens |
I don't know if this is of use to you, but I always use a version-8 style sheet in which TraditionalForm looks really traditional (as close to $\LaTeX$ as it ever was). See my question Inconsistent display of TraditionalForm in version 9 for ways to get this older styling back. To enter displayed equations, I follow some variation of this answer. I usually create PDFs of notebooks and distribute them along with the source. However, PDF export is never great (e.g., no reference links).
|
|
| Feb 27, 2016 at 1:35 | history | edited | David G. Stork | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 503 characters in body
|
| Feb 27, 2016 at 1:30 | history | edited | David G. Stork | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 503 characters in body
|
| Feb 27, 2016 at 1:01 | comment | added | Mike Honeychurch | "whatever code enables them to get the job done" was clearly made in the context of typesetting. In other words I am agreeing with you that others (incl. students) do not care what typesetting methods you use, they just want to read the text. So whatever code enables them (authors) to get the job (typesetting) done is okay. As I have partially said in comments to my deleted answer, if you know LaTex then it is highly likely that it would be a better tool to use. It will most likely be more efficient than using Mathematica. But to claim that something similar cannot be done in Mma misrepresents | |
| Feb 27, 2016 at 0:55 | answer | added | Mike Honeychurch | timeline score: 10 | |
| Feb 27, 2016 at 0:51 | comment | added | David G. Stork | Mike Honeychurch: My book (Pattern Classification, 3rd ed.) is meant to be read and understood by students. The book has nothing to do with using "whatever code enables them to get the job done." Students don't care what typesetting I use... they need to read and understand the text and especially the equations. If there is some Mathematica display setting that yields high-quality equation typesetting, then I'm eager to learn of it. But all Mathematica's defaults are woefully inadequate, as my examples above (and many others) prove. I know well both $\LaTeX$ and Mathematica. | |
| Feb 27, 2016 at 0:46 | history | edited | David G. Stork | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 289 characters in body
|
| Feb 27, 2016 at 0:31 | comment | added | Mike Honeychurch | Your edit just demonstrates a lack of understanding of typesetting Mathematica equations for output. At the end of the day people should use whatever code enables them to get the job done the way they prefer. If you know LaTeX and prefer that then of course use that but the example above is an apples and oranges comparison. | |
| Feb 27, 2016 at 0:28 | history | edited | David G. Stork | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 264 characters in body
|
| Feb 27, 2016 at 0:12 | answer | added | Mike Honeychurch | timeline score: 6 | |
| Feb 26, 2016 at 22:53 | history | edited | David G. Stork | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1424 characters in body; edited title
|
| Feb 26, 2016 at 22:37 | history | asked | David G. Stork | CC BY-SA 3.0 |