hasn't (yet).
Some differences from the examples on that page that I notice immediately:
Math is best delimited inline with \formula{ ... }, not $ ... $
Display math is best delimited with \startformula ... \stopformula , not
$$ ... $$
\operatorname = \mfunction
The double-, triple
instead of looking for a ConTeXt
implementation :)
I met another problem today. Since there are not as many arrows in
ConTeXt as there
in AMS-LaTeX,I don't konw how to type the formula in the attached picture
which will
be referred in my presentation next Monday.
Hello, Xiao.
I'm glad I could help
days -_-
so i'll try to use \int\!\!\!\int instead of looking for a ConTeXt
implementation :)
I met another problem today. Since there are not as many arrows in
ConTeXt as there
in AMS-LaTeX,I don't konw how to type the formula in the attached picture
which will
be referred in my presentation next
15), it says,
We advise you to do some further reading on typesetting formula in TeX.
See for example:
The TeXBook by D.E. Kunth
The Beginners Book of TeX by S. Levy and R.Seroul
I know that LaTeX(and AMS-LaTeX) has made some extensions to TeX in math
typesetting, so I'm wondering
on typesetting formula in
TeX.
See for example:
The TeXBook by D.E. Kunth
The Beginners Book of TeX by S. Levy and R.Seroul
I know that LaTeX(and AMS-LaTeX) has made some extensions to TeX in
math
typesetting, so I'm wondering if ConTeXt has also made extensions to
TeX, or I can only type math
an excursion(page 15), it says,
We advise you to do some further reading on typesetting formula in TeX.
See for example:
The TeXBook by D.E. Kunth
The Beginners Book of TeX by S. Levy and R.Seroul
I know that LaTeX(and AMS-LaTeX) has made some extensions to TeX in math
typesetting, so I'm wondering
advise you to do some further reading on typesetting formula in TeX.
See for example:
The TeXBook by D.E. Kunth
The Beginners Book of TeX by S. Levy and R.Seroul
I know that LaTeX(and AMS-LaTeX) has made some extensions to TeX in math
typesetting, so I'm wondering if ConTeXt has also made extensions
-modern]
[computer-modern][encoding=default]
\setupbodyfont[modern]
\def\Lining{\formula}
\def\BoldLining{\formula[boldmath]}
\starttext
test 1234 test
\ss test 1234 test
\rm test \Lining{1234} test
\bf test \BoldLining{1234} test
\stoptext
And this is all pretty much
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 at 21:21:15+0200, Kai Straube wrote:
BTW is there another way to have units like g/(cm^3) as to set them as
tex-formula. I dont no if the module units do such things.
Yes, it does. Some examples are given in the beginners' manual and in
the module documentation you can
you've already set the main language (after that
language is used for local language switching)
\setuppapersize[A4]
\setupbodyfont[ss]
\starttext
Some text, we can read it without serifs. But the formula: $ \frac{1}{x-2} $
is not in the same font.
\stoptext
for that you need a ss math font
]
\definefontsynonym [MathRoman] [Sans]
\definefontsynonym [MathItalic] [SansItalic]
\stopfontclass
% initialize the typeface
\setupbodyfont[modern,ss]
\starttext
Some text, we can read it without serifs. But the formula: $ \frac{1}{x-2}
$ is not in the same font.
\stoptext
you
[ss]
\starttext
Some text, we can read it without serifs. But the formula: $ \frac{1}{x-2} $
is not in the same font.
\stoptext
BTW is there another way to have units like g/(cm^3) as to set them as
tex-formula. I dont no if the module units do such things.
Thanks,
Kai
Vit Zyka wrote:
But I get error: !Math formula deleted: Insufficient symbol fonts.
Where is the problem?
it means that your font is not a proper math font, taco may know how to deal
with this
? - \starttypescript [*] [fallback] is generaly useful. Is a good idea
replaced by a (faster) setup
] [dynamoRE] [default]
[encoding=\typescripttwo]
\stoptypescript
\startmathcollection[storm]
\definemathcharacter [+] [bin] [sy] [2B]
\definemathcharacter [=] [rel] [sy] [3B]
\stopmathcollection
\enablemathcollection[storm]
$1+1=2$
But I get error: !Math formula deleted: Insufficient symbol fonts
-Symbols][sdgr8te]
% \definefontsynonym [DynamoRE-Math-Extension][]
\stoptypescript
But I get error: !Math formula deleted: Insufficient symbol fonts.
Where is the problem?
I don't know. In doing some math font adaptations, I haven't run into
that error message. Basically, with all
to write and run through Context XML processing:
formula label=fm:whatever
x^{2} y
/formula
or, for typesetting computer programs:
code
if((xy) = 3) {
do_something();
}
/code
(this would translate to \starttyping\stoptyping)
How do I define XML environments that can handle XML
in
this project:
http://oo2contml.sourceforge.net/
(The source code link may be instructive.)
formula label=fm:whatever
x^{2} y
/formula
I use the following, as heavily influenced by Hans:
%D Recommended by Hans as a variant of \type{\XMLtex}:
\unprotected\def\XMLtexdata#1%
{\begingroup
as you would read the formula (eg:
sum of 1 over n square for n from 1 to infinity equals pi squared over 6)
it all depends on where one starts: tex or xml; starting with pure tex, tex4ht
may be a solution; on the other hand, when one starts with xml, one can use
context to produce the pdf's
offer.
ii) Proofread your web pages with lynx (text-only).
If you need formulas, use jpegs/pngs that have as a textual description
a text that will be read as you would read the formula (eg:
sum of 1 over n square for n from 1 to infinity equals pi squared over
6)
it all depends on where one
the formula (eg:
sum of 1 over n square for n from 1 to infinity equals pi squared over
6)
But, again, I am completely at loss when thinking about your request,
which only shows how little we know and do.
Let me know if you find some useful solutions.
Matthias
On Dec 14, 2004, at 1:51 PM, David
Adam Lindsay wrote:
Hi all.
I want to use XML, but in a non-doctrinaire way: I much prefer TeX
formula writing to mathml by hand.
I looked at xtag-mml, and the \defineXMLenvironment [formula] looked like
just what I wanted. However, when trying it, the XML catcode regime was
still in effect
...
\defineXMLenvironmentsave
[formula]
{}
{\XMLtex{formula}}
Hmm. No math there on my machine.
So do you reckon that this is an acceptable elaboration?
\defineXMLenvironmentsave
[formula] [label=]
{}
{\startformula[\XMLop{label}]
\XMLtex{formula} \stopformula}
(it runs okay
Hi all.
I want to use XML, but in a non-doctrinaire way: I much prefer TeX
formula writing to mathml by hand.
I looked at xtag-mml, and the \defineXMLenvironment [formula] looked like
just what I wanted. However, when trying it, the XML catcode regime was
still in effect, and the backslashes
replace [nath] with just [amsl], you'll get different
alignment of the formula.
BTW: my TeX doesn't seem to like DOS-style newlines in t-amsl.tex, so I
had to convert them to Unix-style ones.
David
\usemodule [nath]
\enableregime [utf]
\starttext
\completecontent
\section{Mathmatiques}
\[ f(x)= \frac
@) to expand the formula (in the sense of TeX macro
expansion). \longrightarrow cum suis are, however, not expandable in
ConTeXt.
Now, I do believe the xdef is a bug in nath, but the following
workaround does work:
\protected\def\longrightarrow{\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow}
Hans, do you have
Title: Re: [NTG-context] [ at beginning of
formula ?
At 15:29 -0500 16/11/04, Matthias Weber wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to typeset
[\partial,B]=0
Hi Matthias,
Despite Hans' suggestion of putting \relax in front of [, in my
installation of ConTeXt this works well:
\starttext
\startformula
0
Hi Otared,
the actual problem arises with
\starttext
\startformula
[A,B] =0.
\stopformula
\stoptext
or, even worse, with
\starttext
\startformula
[\partial,B] =0.
\stopformula
\stoptext
Hans' solution is to use \relax whenever one has a [ at the beginning
of a formula:
\starttext
At 7:57 -0500 17/11/04, Matthias Weber wrote:
Hi Otared,
the actual problem arises with
\starttext
\startformula
[A,B] =0.
\stopformula
\stoptext
or, even worse, with
\starttext
\startformula
[\partial,B] =0.
\stopformula
\stoptext
Hi Matthias,
Yes are right, indeed...
However I tried the
Monday, November 15, 2004 Nikolai Weibull wrote:
* Christopher Creutzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Nov 15, 2004 17:20]:
Try \startnathequation ... \stopnathequation instead.
Ah, thanks. Is there still a way to get unnumbered equations?
nikolai
Do not put \placeformula before the equation :)
Hallo,
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
Try \startnathequation ... \stopnathequation instead.
Ah, thanks. Is there still a way to get unnumbered equations?
Do not put \placeformula before the equation :)
Well, that changes a bit the spacing, how about \placeformula[-] ?
Tobias
Hello,
I'd like to typeset
[\partial,B]=0
but
\starttext
\placeformula
\startformula
0= [ A ,B ] = 0
\stopformula
gives just =0
(see below)
while
\stoptext
\starttext
\placeformula
\startformula
0= [ A ,B ]
\stopformula
\stoptext
works. What is the meaning of [ at the beginning of a formula
of [ at the beginning of a formula,
and how do I get rid of it?
there is a forward scan for [ ] i.e. a reference
just put a \relax in front of your intentional [
Hans
-
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
]
\stopformula
\stoptext
works. What is the meaning of [ at the beginning of a formula,
and how do I get rid of it?
there is a forward scan for [ ] i.e. a reference
just put a \relax in front of your intentional [
Hans
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
\usemodule[nath]
\starttext
$A = (B, C, D, E)$
\placeformula
\startformula
A = (B, C, D, E)
\stopformula
\stoptext
! Undefined control sequence.
l.6 A = (
B, C, D, E)
? X
Try \startnathequation ... \stopnathequation instead. Or patch
the spacing system. Try, for instance:
\startformula
\vec\nabla\cdot\vec u = 0
\stopformula
\startformula
\vec\nabla\cdot\vec u {=} 0
\stopformula
Unfortunately, using \phatom{=} results in the same broken spacing as
second formula.
2) When one refers (see example below) with the command
get the same broken spacing as in:
\startformula
a {+ b}
\stopformula
\stoptext
eh ... are you redefining low level macros?
I'd never dare to... ;-) Just overriding \placeformula within
\begingroup/\endgroup to mangle the formula numbers.
Thank you,
David
. It is obviously not optimal,
though it allows for multiple formula numbers on the same slide. Try it
with:
texexec --pdf --mode=demo t-rsteps
Thanks for your advice.
David
%D \module
%D [ file=t-rsteps,
%Dversion=2004.11.08
At 13:01 -0500 8/11/04, David Munger wrote:
Excellent idea indeed! Here's the fix. It is obviously not optimal,
though it allows for multiple formula numbers on the same slide. Try it
with:
texexec --pdf --mode=demo t-rsteps
Thanks for your advice.
Hi David,
I could not get through the example
y_n}\right),
\stopformula
\stoptext
I thought \vec in this case should just chew up the very next symbol, but
the bold seems to continue into the display in the second formula.
I'm missing something here. What is it?
___
ntg-context mailing list
[EMAIL
}\right)\quad\hbox{and}\quad
\vec y =\left(\matrix{y_1\cr y_2\cr \vdots\cr y_n}\right),
\stopformula
\stoptext
I thought \vec in this case should just chew up the very next symbol,
but
the bold seems to continue into the display in the second formula.
I'm missing something here. What
Anybody has an idea on this?
Tuesday, September 7, 2004 Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
Hello,
what I'm trying to achieve is a way to have formula numbers
contain the part number together with the chapter number, as
in:
a = b (part.chapter.formula)
instead of
a = b
Hello,
what I'm trying to achieve is a way to have formula numbers
contain the part number together with the chapter number, as
in:
a = b (part.chapter.formula)
instead of
a = b (chapter.formula)
which is what you have by default, or
a = b (part.formula)
which
. Is there any (non-)documented way
to attach a reference to a line inside '\eqalignno'
multiline formula? E.g. a mechanism like \xxx[Ref]
\eqalignno {
...
f(x) = x^n - 1\xxx[Ref] \cr
...
}
so one can point to \in{formula}[Ref] and get the
correct reference number subsituted?
(2) Left/right
are extensions from my point of view.
Even if math is typical for TeX, it's not typical for ConTeXt.
I think the typical university user is content with LaTeX.
ConTeXt is for those who like to design their own layout.
I seldom need any formula - TeX/ConTeXt is for me simply the
system of choice for big
, my document is typeset in times, but I get this
error:
bodyfont : unknown variant pos
What gives? Has pos been replaced by a new magic formula?
All best
Thomas
___
ntg-context mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg
( or [ should automatically adjust to the
formula they contain, but (\sum_{something}
\frac{something}{something}) only produces standard parentheses.
Commands like \lbrace or \lbrack work as expected, though.
If these problems are unknown, I can post a small example file and my
logfile.
Best
Hi all,
I've just found a little workaround for using boldsymbols. It works
even with the nath module. It's probably not the best way of doing it,
but since it does the trick for me, I guess it might useful to other
ConTeXters.
Here it is:
\define[1]\boldsymbol{{\hbox{\formula{\bfm #1
\define[1]\boldsymbol{{\hbox{\formula{\bfm #1
When using nath, it doesn't work with inline formulas. So in that case,
better use
\unprotect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \bfm #1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\protect
___
ntg-context mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
- Original Message -
From: William D. Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Gary Pajer wrote:
In the following code, the first formula typesets as I want, and the
second doesn't. But the syntax in the second looks correct.
Bug or feature? or setup problem
I'm taking a look at nath (via t-nath). Here's the very first thing I
tried:
In the following code, the first formula typesets as I want, and the
second doesn't. But the syntax in the second looks correct.
Bug or feature? or setup problem?
\usemodule[nath]
\starttext
$ y = (1 + \frac{}{a}{b
Gary Pajer wrote:
I'm taking a look at nath (via t-nath). Here's the very first thing I
tried:
In the following code, the first formula typesets as I want, and the
second doesn't. But the syntax in the second looks correct.
Bug or feature? or setup problem?
\usemodule[nath]
\starttext
$ y
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Gary Pajer wrote:
In the following code, the first formula typesets as I want, and the
second doesn't. But the syntax in the second looks correct.
Bug or feature? or setup problem?
\usemodule[nath]
\starttext
$ y = (1 + \frac{}{a}{b}) $
$ y = (1 + \frac{a}{b
advice?
It's not a good idea indeed.
Try \setupformulas[indentnext=yes], rather. Of course, you do
know that indenting the text following a formula when the text refers to
the formula is not a typographical/structural good idea, don't
you? ;)
--
Giuseppe Oblomov Bilotta
Hello,
Compiling the following results in indented text following the formula:
% interface=en tex=pdfetex output=pdftex
\usemodule [nath]
\setupindenting [medium]
\starttext
\section{Some section}
Let
\placeformula
\[
f(x) = x^2,
\]
where $x$ means nothing.
\stoptext
I'd like where $x$ means
)
In each chapter TOC: for the chapter
At end: An index of all terms that are \index'ed.
All references should be hotlinkable.
I also plan to write wrappers around things, so I can write something
like:
\formula{Fibonacci sequence}{$f(1) = 1$, $f(2) = 1$, $f(n) = f(n-1) +
f(n-2)$}
and have
. I made a
quick fix to amsl for that. Now at least they work both with
and without nath.
Regarding your problem(s):
* with the ConTeXt version I have (2003.09.26), all lines in
the gather are separate. The whole block has a single number,
though. This is both with, and without nath.
* formula
Monday, December 8, 2003 Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
Regarding your problem(s):
* with the ConTeXt version I have (2003.09.26), all lines in
the gather are separate. The whole block has a single number,
though. This is both with, and without nath.
* formula (sub)numbering needs a good cleanup
What version of ConTeXt are you using?
texexec says:
ConTeXt ver: 2003.1.31 fmt: 2003.10.4 int: english mes: english
I'm using the version included in debian unstable's tetex package.
* formula (sub)numbering needs a good cleanup in ConTeXt (just
like math support in general ...). I need
Monday, December 8, 2003 Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
Regarding your problem(s):
* with the ConTeXt version I have (2003.09.26), all lines in
the gather are separate. The whole block has a single number,
though. This is both with, and without nath.
* formula (sub)numbering needs a good cleanup
have
fixed the problem, and actually created a couple of new ones,
but at least we would have been using the same versions ;))
* formula (sub)numbering needs a good cleanup in ConTeXt (just
like math support in general ...). I need to discuss the thing
with Hans before being able to fix
nath.
* formula (sub)numbering needs a good cleanup in ConTeXt (just
like math support in general ...). I need to discuss the thing
with Hans before being able to fix the thing in amsl and/or
nath.
Ok, I think I found what's going wrong.
Actually you did! :) One number per line, great
\startformula[boldmath,11pt,small]
x=11s=\fontbody \Gamma \Delta \alpha \delta \zeta
\stopformula
\startformula[boldmath,9pt]
x=9=\fontbody \Gamma \Delta \alpha \delta \zeta
\stopformula
\formula[boldmath]{1=2x}
Hans
___
ntg-context mailing list
Hi,
How I can decrease (locally - only one formula) font
size in math mode ?
--
Best regards
Martin
___
ntg-context mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
} \startformula test \stopformula test
\endgraf test
\dorecurse{30}{\bpar \dorecurse\recurselevel{test } \epar
\startformula formula \stopformula}
Thank you for the patch \moveformula now works fine.
I have not tested the \bpar-\epar thing since it looks like there is a
small bug: when I typeset
test
\dorecurse{30}{\bpar \dorecurse\recurselevel{test } \epar \startformula
formula \stopformula}
no guarantees -)
Hans
new.zip
Description: Zip archive
-
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | [EMAIL
.
%
this 'using a fake formula' is more or less the way i determine the last
line length, but keep in mind that this only works in situations like:
some text \measline
and not in
some text \par (or empty line) \measline
Hans
Thursday, September 18, 2003 Hans Hagen wrote:
this 'using a fake formula' is more or less the way i determine the last
line length, but keep in mind that this only works in situations like:
some text \measline
and not in
some text \par (or empty line) \measline
Hans
At 10:47 18/09/2003 +0200, you wrote:
Thursday, September 18, 2003 Hans Hagen wrote:
this 'using a fake formula' is more or less the way i determine the last
line length, but keep in mind that this only works in situations like:
some text \measline
and not in
some text \par (or empty
. there
is already quite some space there; i'd rather tend to have a different
threshold then (say 4em instead of 2em, which boils down to:
some long text
formula part of paragraph
some text
formula part of paragraph
some long text
formula not part
Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Emil Hedevang Lohse wrote:
Hello,
Suppose I have the following code:
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
\startmpformula
formula
\stopmpformula
and that it yields the following output
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah
At 17:59 17/09/2003 +0200, you wrote:
You don't :\ Sadly, Hans decided that the difference between
abovedisplayskip and abovedisplayshortskip was unnecessary.
Hans?
that's not true -)
the problem is that it is quite hard to get the spacing ok in situations like
text
formula
text
this has
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Tobias Burnus wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Holger Schöner wrote:
Thanks, Tobias! This works for me, if I place a \placeformula before
formulas enclosed by $$. Funny, though, that I get an error if I instead
enclose the formula with \startformula ... \endformula
}
Thanks, Tobias! This works for me, if I place a \placeformula before
formulas enclosed by $$. Funny, though, that I get an error if I instead
enclose the formula with \startformula ... \endformula:
--
! You can't use `\halign' in math mode.
\eqalignno [EMAIL PROTECTED] \tabskip \centering
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Tobias Burnus wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Holger Schöner wrote:
Thanks, Tobias! This works for me, if I place a \placeformula before
formulas enclosed by $$. Funny, though, that I get an error if I instead
enclose the formula with \startformula ... \endformula
1201 - 1274 of 1274 matches
Mail list logo
