How to partially make a segment of a path dashed?
0
I have two stocks, A and B. These two "meet" each other at rates q(x), and f(x), by going through a joint-state process called X. Then, A becomes a, and B becomes b.
I thought about visualizing the flowchart as in the attached box. However, I'm clueless as to how solve this within tikz. Bonus: The arrows become dashed arrows while "inside of X".
tikz-pgf
edited 9 mins ago
Artificial Stupidity
5,29511039
asked 46 mins ago
FooBar
350112
add a comment |
0
I have two stocks, A and B. These two "meet" each other at rates q(x), and f(x), by going through a joint-state process called X. Then, A becomes a, and B becomes b.
I thought about visualizing the flowchart as in the attached box. However, I'm clueless as to how solve this within tikz. Bonus: The arrows become dashed arrows while "inside of X".
tikz-pgf
edited 9 mins ago
Artificial Stupidity
5,29511039
asked 46 mins ago
FooBar
350112
2
You've been a member for more than 5 years, you should know that with a minimal working example (MWE) is easier to help you. Please edit your question adding what you've tried so far; as is, it's a just-do-it-for-me one.
– CarLaTeX
37 mins ago
@CarLaTeX Honestly, I don't see the point of an MWE here. It's not clear at all whether I should start from a single arrow A->a, or merge two separate ones, and probably the solution is far away from trivial scrambles I had so far. The MWE will not make the question clearer, it will not expose any particular error. It will mostly add fluff/noise to the question and makes it less useful for future readers, rendering it a less useful resource.
– FooBar
26 mins ago
The point is "adding what you've tried so far".
– vaettchen
11 mins ago
@FooBar Without an MWE, you leave all the work to the people trying to help you! It's easier to start from what you have already done!
– CarLaTeX
8 mins ago
add a comment |
0
0
0
1
I have two stocks, A and B. These two "meet" each other at rates q(x), and f(x), by going through a joint-state process called X. Then, A becomes a, and B becomes b.
I thought about visualizing the flowchart as in the attached box. However, I'm clueless as to how solve this within tikz. Bonus: The arrows become dashed arrows while "inside of X".
tikz-pgf
edited 9 mins ago
Artificial Stupidity
5,29511039
asked 46 mins ago
FooBar
350112
I have two stocks, A and B. These two "meet" each other at rates q(x), and f(x), by going through a joint-state process called X. Then, A becomes a, and B becomes b.
I thought about visualizing the flowchart as in the attached box. However, I'm clueless as to how solve this within tikz. Bonus: The arrows become dashed arrows while "inside of X".
tikz-pgf
tikz-pgf
edited 9 mins ago
Artificial Stupidity
5,29511039
asked 46 mins ago
FooBar
350112
edited 9 mins ago
Artificial Stupidity
5,29511039
asked 46 mins ago
FooBar
350112
edited 9 mins ago
Artificial Stupidity
5,29511039
edited 9 mins ago
Artificial Stupidity
5,29511039
edited 9 mins ago
Artificial Stupidity
5,29511039
5,29511039
asked 46 mins ago
FooBar
350112
asked 46 mins ago
FooBar
350112
asked 46 mins ago
FooBar
350112
350112
2
You've been a member for more than 5 years, you should know that with a minimal working example (MWE) is easier to help you. Please edit your question adding what you've tried so far; as is, it's a just-do-it-for-me one.
– CarLaTeX
37 mins ago
@CarLaTeX Honestly, I don't see the point of an MWE here. It's not clear at all whether I should start from a single arrow A->a, or merge two separate ones, and probably the solution is far away from trivial scrambles I had so far. The MWE will not make the question clearer, it will not expose any particular error. It will mostly add fluff/noise to the question and makes it less useful for future readers, rendering it a less useful resource.
– FooBar
26 mins ago
The point is "adding what you've tried so far".
– vaettchen
11 mins ago
@FooBar Without an MWE, you leave all the work to the people trying to help you! It's easier to start from what you have already done!
– CarLaTeX
8 mins ago
add a comment |
2
You've been a member for more than 5 years, you should know that with a minimal working example (MWE) is easier to help you. Please edit your question adding what you've tried so far; as is, it's a just-do-it-for-me one.
– CarLaTeX
37 mins ago
@CarLaTeX Honestly, I don't see the point of an MWE here. It's not clear at all whether I should start from a single arrow A->a, or merge two separate ones, and probably the solution is far away from trivial scrambles I had so far. The MWE will not make the question clearer, it will not expose any particular error. It will mostly add fluff/noise to the question and makes it less useful for future readers, rendering it a less useful resource.
– FooBar
26 mins ago
The point is "adding what you've tried so far".
– vaettchen
11 mins ago
@FooBar Without an MWE, you leave all the work to the people trying to help you! It's easier to start from what you have already done!
– CarLaTeX
8 mins ago
2
2
You've been a member for more than 5 years, you should know that with a minimal working example (MWE) is easier to help you. Please edit your question adding what you've tried so far; as is, it's a just-do-it-for-me one.
– CarLaTeX
37 mins ago
You've been a member for more than 5 years, you should know that with a minimal working example (MWE) is easier to help you. Please edit your question adding what you've tried so far; as is, it's a just-do-it-for-me one.
– CarLaTeX
37 mins ago
@CarLaTeX Honestly, I don't see the point of an MWE here. It's not clear at all whether I should start from a single arrow A->a, or merge two separate ones, and probably the solution is far away from trivial scrambles I had so far. The MWE will not make the question clearer, it will not expose any particular error. It will mostly add fluff/noise to the question and makes it less useful for future readers, rendering it a less useful resource.
– FooBar
26 mins ago
@CarLaTeX Honestly, I don't see the point of an MWE here. It's not clear at all whether I should start from a single arrow A->a, or merge two separate ones, and probably the solution is far away from trivial scrambles I had so far. The MWE will not make the question clearer, it will not expose any particular error. It will mostly add fluff/noise to the question and makes it less useful for future readers, rendering it a less useful resource.
– FooBar
26 mins ago
The point is "adding what you've tried so far".
– vaettchen
11 mins ago
The point is "adding what you've tried so far".
– vaettchen
11 mins ago
@FooBar Without an MWE, you leave all the work to the people trying to help you! It's easier to start from what you have already done!
– CarLaTeX
8 mins ago
@FooBar Without an MWE, you leave all the work to the people trying to help you! It's easier to start from what you have already done!
– CarLaTeX
8 mins ago
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f466945%2fhow-to-partially-make-a-segment-of-a-path-dashed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f466945%2fhow-to-partially-make-a-segment-of-a-path-dashed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
You've been a member for more than 5 years, you should know that with a minimal working example (MWE) is easier to help you. Please edit your question adding what you've tried so far; as is, it's a just-do-it-for-me one.
– CarLaTeX
37 mins ago
@CarLaTeX Honestly, I don't see the point of an MWE here. It's not clear at all whether I should start from a single arrow A->a, or merge two separate ones, and probably the solution is far away from trivial scrambles I had so far. The MWE will not make the question clearer, it will not expose any particular error. It will mostly add fluff/noise to the question and makes it less useful for future readers, rendering it a less useful resource.
– FooBar
26 mins ago
The point is "adding what you've tried so far".
– vaettchen
11 mins ago
@FooBar Without an MWE, you leave all the work to the people trying to help you! It's easier to start from what you have already done!
– CarLaTeX
8 mins ago