Post Reply 
Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
04-05-2018, 05:49 PM
Post: #1
Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
I'd like to insert a math formula in an append and don't know how. I once did so by modifying what someone else did. But where may I find a description of all possibilities?
I looked arround here -- nothing found, I looked at MyBB site -- no luck, I binged it and got a list, alas for the old forum -- it's still the same, alas there are no formulas described. Grrr!

Ciao.....Mike Sad
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2018, 08:16 PM
Post: #2
RE: Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
For math use latex and then wrap it around
Code:

\( formula \)

https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

The engine used is mathjax

Wikis are great, Contribute :)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2018, 10:08 PM
Post: #3
RE: Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
Thank you, works, alas no manual.

Best,
M.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2018, 05:33 AM
Post: #4
RE: Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
For a manual search the documentation of mathjax. There should be something.

Wikis are great, Contribute :)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2018, 05:38 AM
Post: #5
RE: Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
(04-05-2018 10:08 PM)Mike (Stgt) Wrote:  Thank you, works, alas no manual.

The manuals are HUGE. If you also want to have a life, I suggest using one of the online LaTeX editors to (a) see what options are available, (b) play with them, and (c) look at the resulting code and learn.

FWIW, all three of these LaTeX editors are good teachers:
http://s1.daumcdn.net/editor/fp/service_...store.html
http://atomurl.net/math/
http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

X<> c
-Joe-
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2018, 09:05 AM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2018 09:08 AM by Mike (Stgt).)
Post: #6
RE: Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
(04-06-2018 05:38 AM)Joe Horn Wrote:  The manuals are HUGE. [...]

Thank you for your suggestions.
BTW, I do not fear HUGE manuals, for example the Author’s Edition about Pilpelines, it merits to be called almost a documentation, the piping community refere to it as "the Book" -- well, there are reasons why some warn from those with only one book. Wink

So here a fist test:

\(\vartheta _{\tau } = 273\frac{m}{k-1.15m} \; \; with \, m = \ln \frac{p_{d}}{p_{0}}\)

Looks promising. Thank you both again.

/M.

Edit: supplemented the link, minor detail
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-16-2018, 12:01 PM
Post: #7
RE: Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
I wanted to have in the following formula all negative values shown in red, like -16 and -50.

\(\frac{3.125}{\frac{1}{–16}}= –50\). As such \(\frac{–50}{–16}\approx \pi\).

Alas, when I set
\frac{3.125}{\frac{1}{{\color{Red} -16}}}={\color{Red} -50}
and
\frac{{\color{Red} -50}}{{\color{Red} -16}}\approx \pi
only the minus sign is coloured, at least on my screen.

\(\frac{3.125}{\frac{1}{{\color{Red} -16}}}={\color{Red} -50}\), analogical \(\frac{{\color{Red} -50}}{{\color{Red} -16}}\approx \pi\).
The online editor shows sign and number in red.

What do I wrong?

Ciao.....Mike
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-16-2018, 12:43 PM (This post was last modified: 04-16-2018 12:44 PM by pier4r.)
Post: #8
RE: Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
(04-16-2018 12:01 PM)Mike (Stgt) Wrote:  I wanted to have in the following formula all negative values shown in red, like -16 and -50.

\(\frac{\color{red}{-50}}{\color{red}{-16}}\approx \pi\)

https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax-docs/...and-Colors
search for "mathjax color" on google. For me it is the 3rd result.

Wikis are great, Contribute :)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-16-2018, 01:35 PM (This post was last modified: 04-16-2018 01:49 PM by Mike (Stgt).)
Post: #9
RE: Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
(04-16-2018 12:43 PM)pier4r Wrote:  
(04-16-2018 12:01 PM)Mike (Stgt) Wrote:  I wanted to have in the following formula all negative values shown in red, like -16 and -50.

\(\frac{\color{red}{-50}}{\color{red}{-16}}\approx \pi\)

https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax-docs/...and-Colors
search for "mathjax color" on google. For me it is the 3rd result.

Thank you for your prompt reply.
Test:

\(\frac{3.125}{\frac{1}{\color{Red}{-16}}}=\color{Red} {-50}\)

OK, got it, the editor places a curly open bracket before \color instead after {Red}.
Remains the different interpretation regarding the font size, the 1/16 is too small, almost not readable:
\(\frac{3.125}{\frac{1}{\color{Red}{-16}}}\)

The editor offers a compressed-switch (which BTW is not reflected in the code), is there an uncompressed-switch for the interpreter? Yep! Found \displaystyle
\(x = a_0 + \frac{1}{a_1 + \frac{1}{a_2 + \frac{1}{a_3 + a_4}}}\) vs \(x = a_0 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle a_1 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle a_2 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle a_3 + a_4}}} \)

Alas, not yet really what I'd like -- I should RTFM... who told me not to go for it?

/M.

EDIT: Looks as there is no other option than \displaystyle. \textstyle, \scriptstyle and \scriptscriptstyle just do the contrary what I am looking for. Ma be the outcome of \displaystyle is correct and I only have to get used to it.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-16-2018, 02:11 PM
Post: #10
RE: Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
(04-16-2018 01:35 PM)Mike (Stgt) Wrote:  I should RTFM... who told me not to go for it?

Who on earth would do such a silly thing? Big Grin

X<> c
-Joe-
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-16-2018, 03:40 PM
Post: #11
RE: Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
the visualization options are depending on the .css . Mathjax is still producing something embedded in the page, it is not pure latex.

Also yes, sometimes RTBM (read the beahurtiful manual. So beautiful that it hurts) helps, but only if one has very particular needs.

For most parts codecogs is quite enough.

Wikis are great, Contribute :)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-16-2018, 03:46 PM
Post: #12
RE: Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
To both -- thank you for your time. Smile
Ciao.....Mike
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-16-2018, 04:12 PM
Post: #13
RE: Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
(04-16-2018 01:35 PM)Mike (Stgt) Wrote:  OK, got it, the editor places a curly open bracket before \color instead after {Red}.
Remains the different interpretation regarding the font size, the 1/16 is too small, almost not readable:
\(\frac{3.125}{\frac{1}{\color{Red}{-16}}}\)

The editor offers a compressed-switch (which BTW is not reflected in the code), is there an uncompressed-switch for the interpreter? Yep! Found \displaystyle
\(x = a_0 + \frac{1}{a_1 + \frac{1}{a_2 + \frac{1}{a_3 + a_4}}}\) vs \(x = a_0 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle a_1 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle a_2 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle a_3 + a_4}}} \)

You can also use
Code:
\( and \)
for "inline" equations like \(x^2+{1\over{a\over1+b_0}}\) and
Code:
\[ and \]
for "displaystyle" ones:\[x^2+{1\over{a\over1+b_0}}\]

The former are compressed by default, whereas the latter are uncompressed.

Regards.

César - Information must flow.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-16-2018, 06:05 PM
Post: #14
RE: Where may I find the complete description of formatting options?
(04-16-2018 04:12 PM)emece67 Wrote:  You can also use
Code:
\( and \)
for "inline" equations like \(x^2+{1\over{a\over1+b_0}}\) and
Code:
\[ and \]
for "displaystyle" ones:\[x^2+{1\over{a\over1+b_0}}\]

The former are compressed by default, whereas the latter are uncompressed.

Ah! How comes you know and I don't? ... never mind...
Test with round brackets:
\(x = a_0 + \frac{1}{a_1 + \frac{1}{a_2 + \frac{1}{a_3 + a_4}}}\) vs (using also displaystyle) \(x = a_0 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle a_1 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle a_2 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle a_3 + a_4}}} \)
... and again with square brackets:
\[x = a_0 + \frac{1}{a_1 + \frac{1}{a_2 + \frac{1}{a_3 + a_4}}}\] vs (using also displaystyle) \[x = a_0 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle a_1 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle a_2 + \frac{1}{\displaystyle a_3 + a_4}}} \]
Test failed, the only difference I see is a change in the kind of alignment, left aligned vs centerd. No, not true, in addition the first 1 and \(a_1\) is bigger.
/M.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)