To tell the whole story, I've written a new TeXmacs plugin for Axiom (in
Python) that displays only the TeX output, which latter I expected to be
reliable. To obtain nice output (subscripted exponents) I enter for example
a^b__1 => Axiom removes one underscore => TeX output $$a^b_1$$
hence I s
In the case c is literally an integer, and b is a symbol,
then most likely c is meant to be a single subscript---of
course, it could also be a superscript, but we can't tell.
For subscript, the TeX code would be $a^{b_{c}}$. If c is
meant to be a double subscript, like b13 to mean b_{1,3},
the
Yes, indeed. I didn't even think of the interpretation as a^{b c}
because in fact c were integers in my examples, so it didn't attract
much attention when rendered, but it's definitively not to distinguish
when c is literal. I have to review my workaround.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Kurt
A
Hello,
by accident I noticed the following irregularity in the TeX output
(missing {}):
a**bc (or a^bc).
Axiom:
$$
a^bc
\leqno(4)
$$
OpenAxiom, Fricas:
$$
a \sp bc
\leqno(6)
$$
Usually, one uses only one character variables :)
I'm using Axiom mostly via Python (TeXmacs, IPython) so that
re.
