Show inline math as if it were display math
up vote
127
down vote
favorite
I'm very familiar with how symbols display differently in inline mode (with $
) vs. how display math shows them (with [
or $$
). Two examples would be with limits
$lim_{nrigharrow infty}f(x)$
vs.
[lim_{nrigharrow infty}f(x)]
and with sums
$sum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
vs.
[sum_{n=1}^{x} n^2]
My Question is:
How do you display these things in inline mode (with all the nice inline formatting) as though they were in display mode ?
math-mode
add a comment |
up vote
127
down vote
favorite
I'm very familiar with how symbols display differently in inline mode (with $
) vs. how display math shows them (with [
or $$
). Two examples would be with limits
$lim_{nrigharrow infty}f(x)$
vs.
[lim_{nrigharrow infty}f(x)]
and with sums
$sum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
vs.
[sum_{n=1}^{x} n^2]
My Question is:
How do you display these things in inline mode (with all the nice inline formatting) as though they were in display mode ?
math-mode
3
For reference on the use of[...]
or$$...$$
, see: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/503/why-is-preferable-to
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 20:58
2
If the effect you want is only to have the limits look likedisplaystyle
(but not the larger size) you might want to rephrase the question...in that case you might want to look atlimits
.
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
Related question: Sums in math mode: how to display index under the sigma sign?
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 21:03
add a comment |
up vote
127
down vote
favorite
up vote
127
down vote
favorite
I'm very familiar with how symbols display differently in inline mode (with $
) vs. how display math shows them (with [
or $$
). Two examples would be with limits
$lim_{nrigharrow infty}f(x)$
vs.
[lim_{nrigharrow infty}f(x)]
and with sums
$sum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
vs.
[sum_{n=1}^{x} n^2]
My Question is:
How do you display these things in inline mode (with all the nice inline formatting) as though they were in display mode ?
math-mode
I'm very familiar with how symbols display differently in inline mode (with $
) vs. how display math shows them (with [
or $$
). Two examples would be with limits
$lim_{nrigharrow infty}f(x)$
vs.
[lim_{nrigharrow infty}f(x)]
and with sums
$sum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
vs.
[sum_{n=1}^{x} n^2]
My Question is:
How do you display these things in inline mode (with all the nice inline formatting) as though they were in display mode ?
math-mode
math-mode
edited Oct 27 '11 at 7:56
Neil G
7,536135292
7,536135292
asked Oct 26 '11 at 20:51
akdom
8902710
8902710
3
For reference on the use of[...]
or$$...$$
, see: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/503/why-is-preferable-to
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 20:58
2
If the effect you want is only to have the limits look likedisplaystyle
(but not the larger size) you might want to rephrase the question...in that case you might want to look atlimits
.
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
Related question: Sums in math mode: how to display index under the sigma sign?
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 21:03
add a comment |
3
For reference on the use of[...]
or$$...$$
, see: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/503/why-is-preferable-to
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 20:58
2
If the effect you want is only to have the limits look likedisplaystyle
(but not the larger size) you might want to rephrase the question...in that case you might want to look atlimits
.
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
Related question: Sums in math mode: how to display index under the sigma sign?
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 21:03
3
3
For reference on the use of
[...]
or $$...$$
, see: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/503/why-is-preferable-to– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 20:58
For reference on the use of
[...]
or $$...$$
, see: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/503/why-is-preferable-to– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 20:58
2
2
If the effect you want is only to have the limits look like
displaystyle
(but not the larger size) you might want to rephrase the question...in that case you might want to look at limits
.– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
If the effect you want is only to have the limits look like
displaystyle
(but not the larger size) you might want to rephrase the question...in that case you might want to look at limits
.– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
Related question: Sums in math mode: how to display index under the sigma sign?
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 21:03
Related question: Sums in math mode: how to display index under the sigma sign?
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 21:03
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
202
down vote
accepted
I think there are two separate aspects to your question:
How does one control the size of integral, sum and product symbols?
How does one control the placement of the limits of integration, summation, and multiplication: side-set vs. below/above?
These two aspects can be addressed separately.
- To control the size of the operators explicitly, one writes either
textstyle
for small symbols ordisplaystyle
for large symbols, before the command that generates the symbol.
- Side remark, inspired by an observation by @HaraldHancheOlsen: In addition to influencing the size of the operators created by the commands
sum
,prod
, etc, the declarationstextstyle
anddisplaystyle
may also affect the behavior of other subsequent commands in the current math-mode environment.
- Side remark, inspired by an observation by @HaraldHancheOlsen: In addition to influencing the size of the operators created by the commands
- To control the placement of the limits, one writes either
nolimits
(for side-set limits) orlimits
(for limits set below&above the symbol) after the command that generates the symbol.
The possibilities are illustrated in the table below.
The default settings in LaTeX are (I'm assuming the amsmath
package is loaded too):
- Inline math: Small operator symbols;
- Limits side-set for all operators;
- Note: Setting the options
sumlimits
andintlimits
when loading theamsmath
package does not affect the placement of limits when in inline math.
- Display math: Large operator symbols;
sum
,prod
,coprod
, etc: Limits set above and below operator, unless amsmath was loaded with the optionnosumlimits
.
- Note: The
sumlimits
andnosumlimits
options (and the commandslimits
andnolimits
) affect not only the appearance of summation symbols in display math mode, but also that ofprod
,coprod
,bigcup
andbigcap
, etc. See Tables 57 to 65 of the Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List for the names of these "large" -- more precisely, "variable-sized" -- math operators. The only group of variable-sized operators that's treated differently is the set of integral symbols (presumably because they're generally already quite a bit taller than the other "large" operators).
- Note: The
int
: Limits are set to the side of integral symbol unless amsmath was loaded with the optionintlimits
.
Here's the code for the preceding table:
documentclass[letterpaper]{standalone}
usepackage{array,amsmath,booktabs}
begin{document}
Huge
begin{tabular}{l
>{$textstyle}l<{$} % first math column: text style
>{$displaystyle}l<{$}} % second math column: display style
toprule
Placement of limits & multicolumn{2}{c}{Size of operators} \
cmidrule{2-3}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{small:}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{large:}\
& multicolumn{1}{l}{texttt{textbackslash textstyle}}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{texttt{textbackslash displaystyle}}\
cmidrule[lightrulewidth]{2-3}
Next to symbol: & multicolumn{1}{l}{phantom{texttt{textbackslash displaystyle }}}\
texttt{textbackslash nolimits}
& sumnolimits_{i=1}^N a_i
& sumnolimits_{i=1}^N a_i \[2ex]
& prodnolimits_{j=0}^J k_j
& prodnolimits_{j=0}^J k_j \[2.5ex]
& intnolimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x
& intnolimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x \[5ex]
Below & above symbol:\[-1ex]
texttt{textbackslash limits}
& sumlimits_{i=1}^N a_i
& sumlimits_{i=1}^N a_i \[3.5ex]
& prodlimits_{j=0}^J k_j
& prodlimits_{j=0}^J k_j \[4ex]
& intlimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x
& intlimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x \
bottomrule
end{tabular}
end{document}
Finally, some personal views on the (ab)uses of the limits
and displaystyle
commands when in inline math mode:
- It's generally not a good idea to use the
limits
command when in inline math mode. Otherwise, one is virtually assured of wrecking the appearance of the paragraph where the formula appears. - It's frequently not even necessary to indicate the full set of limits of a summation or multiplication when in inline math mode. Expressions such as
sum_i
orprod_j
are usually just fine. You may even be able to get away with omitting the subscriptsi
andj
! - Using the
displaystyle
command (to force the creation of large symbols) while in inline math mode is an even worse idea than usinglimits
.
11
Informative & educative!
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 23:07
4
Minor nit: You might have made it more clear thatdisplaystyle
andtextstyle
do not affect only the following symbol. They are declarations whose effects last until the end of the formula (or group) or until overridden.
– Harald Hanche-Olsen
Oct 27 '11 at 16:20
13
I have found thatdisplaystyle
in inline math is useful when preparingbeamer
presentations. In an itemized list, sometimes there is a short text (like two words) preceding a formula, and I don't want to waste valuable vertical space on a displayed formula but do want large symbols. Thendisplaystyle
is appropriate, since the items in a list are visually similar to displays.
– Ryan Reich
Feb 14 '12 at 19:47
2
@RyanReich: Good point about Beamer presentations' material often having different requirements than that of "ordinary" inline material. Thus, bullet point stuff can behave very much like display math material -- and hence may need to invokedisplaystyle
and/orlimits
.
– Mico
Feb 14 '12 at 23:12
add a comment |
up vote
44
down vote
The other answers are excellent, and normally I would not try to change the behavior of inline functions. However, there is one case where I wish inline functions to behave just like displayed functions. That is when I write exams. I am willing to compromise on typesetting for readability. If you put
everymath{displaystyle}
in your preamble, every equation will be typeset in that manner, and you don't have to put displaystyle
in every equation. Of course, if you are looking to change just a few equations, then displaystyle
is easy to use.
1
the only answer that actually solves this problem
– Håkon
Aug 20 '15 at 4:23
4
@IllegalImmigrant Unfortunately, it's the wrong answer. It has several upvotes, probably because of simplicity; but this simplicity is at the expense of good typography. No, doingeverymath{displaystyle}
is generally a bad idea.
– egreg
Oct 15 '15 at 12:20
add a comment |
up vote
44
down vote
Good typography relies on the balance of all aspects of black and white on the page. Uniformly spaced lines for the ordinary text make for good legibility. That's why some symbols, that in display are rendered with limits above and below, are set with limits on the side when used in in-line formulas.
I too, when I began to use TeX, tried to set limits for sums above and below also in in-line formulas, but I soon realized that it's wrong: two white bands separated that line from the next ones.
For that very reason the symbols for summation and integral are set in two different sizes: a smaller one for in-line formulas, a larger one for displayed formulas that don't have spacing constraints.
Displayed formulas are set using (automatically) displaystyle
, so
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
would produce the same symbol used in displayed formulas and set limits above and below. But this will damage the balance of the page beyond repair. A less invasive construction
$sumlimits_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
and its sibling
$limlimits_{ntoinfty}f(x)$
will do less damage to the page, but will nevertheless spoil it.
Such constructions have their use, for examples in tables where TeX would use in-line math mode. But I will never suggest to use them in normal text.
2
While true, your answer reads a little patronizing. I think we can treat users of this site as adults. if somebody asks how to do something, we should not assume that they do not know what they are talking about, or at-least should not let our answer show that... :-)
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:32
22
@YossiFarjoun, while egreg's response is a bit sharp, I don't think it is always a bad idea to question someone's purpose for wanting to achieve a certain look with TeX. As someone who started using LaTeX not too long ago, I must credit my still-improving sense for good typesetting to people who told me that I didn't actually want to do what I said I wanted to do. I would be a poorer TeXer were it not for them. In general, it seems to be a feature of well-designed systems that learning them requires shifting one's approach to problems.
– JohnJamesSmith
Oct 26 '11 at 22:08
2
That's a fantastic new version egreg. Definitely a more complete answer to the question.
– akdom
Oct 27 '11 at 23:37
1
@dh87 That's simply wrong, particularly in exponents.
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:36
1
@dh87 Sorry: do as he likes. But be still thinking it's wrong.;-)
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:53
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
The solution you seek is to use the displaystyle
command within the inline environment as such.
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
This will give the nice effect of the starting term being underneath the sigma and the maximum value above while keeping the symbols inline.
13
Interesting how the presentation is done in the 3rd person.
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 20:55
I figured that it would be the most immediately accessible for people quickly looking for an answer :) .
– akdom
Oct 26 '11 at 20:58
Well, it a wrong answer.
– egreg
Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
1
@egreg: The answer isn't wrong....it answers the question exactly. I think that the question is wrong...but that's what down-voting the question is for...
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:33
17
I have to admit that I don't like the way that the answer is phrased (irrespective of whether or not it is correct). Answering ones own question is absolutely fine, but do it honestly not pretending that you aren't the person who asked the question.
– Loop Space
Oct 27 '11 at 6:36
|
show 1 more comment
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
202
down vote
accepted
I think there are two separate aspects to your question:
How does one control the size of integral, sum and product symbols?
How does one control the placement of the limits of integration, summation, and multiplication: side-set vs. below/above?
These two aspects can be addressed separately.
- To control the size of the operators explicitly, one writes either
textstyle
for small symbols ordisplaystyle
for large symbols, before the command that generates the symbol.
- Side remark, inspired by an observation by @HaraldHancheOlsen: In addition to influencing the size of the operators created by the commands
sum
,prod
, etc, the declarationstextstyle
anddisplaystyle
may also affect the behavior of other subsequent commands in the current math-mode environment.
- Side remark, inspired by an observation by @HaraldHancheOlsen: In addition to influencing the size of the operators created by the commands
- To control the placement of the limits, one writes either
nolimits
(for side-set limits) orlimits
(for limits set below&above the symbol) after the command that generates the symbol.
The possibilities are illustrated in the table below.
The default settings in LaTeX are (I'm assuming the amsmath
package is loaded too):
- Inline math: Small operator symbols;
- Limits side-set for all operators;
- Note: Setting the options
sumlimits
andintlimits
when loading theamsmath
package does not affect the placement of limits when in inline math.
- Display math: Large operator symbols;
sum
,prod
,coprod
, etc: Limits set above and below operator, unless amsmath was loaded with the optionnosumlimits
.
- Note: The
sumlimits
andnosumlimits
options (and the commandslimits
andnolimits
) affect not only the appearance of summation symbols in display math mode, but also that ofprod
,coprod
,bigcup
andbigcap
, etc. See Tables 57 to 65 of the Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List for the names of these "large" -- more precisely, "variable-sized" -- math operators. The only group of variable-sized operators that's treated differently is the set of integral symbols (presumably because they're generally already quite a bit taller than the other "large" operators).
- Note: The
int
: Limits are set to the side of integral symbol unless amsmath was loaded with the optionintlimits
.
Here's the code for the preceding table:
documentclass[letterpaper]{standalone}
usepackage{array,amsmath,booktabs}
begin{document}
Huge
begin{tabular}{l
>{$textstyle}l<{$} % first math column: text style
>{$displaystyle}l<{$}} % second math column: display style
toprule
Placement of limits & multicolumn{2}{c}{Size of operators} \
cmidrule{2-3}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{small:}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{large:}\
& multicolumn{1}{l}{texttt{textbackslash textstyle}}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{texttt{textbackslash displaystyle}}\
cmidrule[lightrulewidth]{2-3}
Next to symbol: & multicolumn{1}{l}{phantom{texttt{textbackslash displaystyle }}}\
texttt{textbackslash nolimits}
& sumnolimits_{i=1}^N a_i
& sumnolimits_{i=1}^N a_i \[2ex]
& prodnolimits_{j=0}^J k_j
& prodnolimits_{j=0}^J k_j \[2.5ex]
& intnolimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x
& intnolimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x \[5ex]
Below & above symbol:\[-1ex]
texttt{textbackslash limits}
& sumlimits_{i=1}^N a_i
& sumlimits_{i=1}^N a_i \[3.5ex]
& prodlimits_{j=0}^J k_j
& prodlimits_{j=0}^J k_j \[4ex]
& intlimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x
& intlimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x \
bottomrule
end{tabular}
end{document}
Finally, some personal views on the (ab)uses of the limits
and displaystyle
commands when in inline math mode:
- It's generally not a good idea to use the
limits
command when in inline math mode. Otherwise, one is virtually assured of wrecking the appearance of the paragraph where the formula appears. - It's frequently not even necessary to indicate the full set of limits of a summation or multiplication when in inline math mode. Expressions such as
sum_i
orprod_j
are usually just fine. You may even be able to get away with omitting the subscriptsi
andj
! - Using the
displaystyle
command (to force the creation of large symbols) while in inline math mode is an even worse idea than usinglimits
.
11
Informative & educative!
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 23:07
4
Minor nit: You might have made it more clear thatdisplaystyle
andtextstyle
do not affect only the following symbol. They are declarations whose effects last until the end of the formula (or group) or until overridden.
– Harald Hanche-Olsen
Oct 27 '11 at 16:20
13
I have found thatdisplaystyle
in inline math is useful when preparingbeamer
presentations. In an itemized list, sometimes there is a short text (like two words) preceding a formula, and I don't want to waste valuable vertical space on a displayed formula but do want large symbols. Thendisplaystyle
is appropriate, since the items in a list are visually similar to displays.
– Ryan Reich
Feb 14 '12 at 19:47
2
@RyanReich: Good point about Beamer presentations' material often having different requirements than that of "ordinary" inline material. Thus, bullet point stuff can behave very much like display math material -- and hence may need to invokedisplaystyle
and/orlimits
.
– Mico
Feb 14 '12 at 23:12
add a comment |
up vote
202
down vote
accepted
I think there are two separate aspects to your question:
How does one control the size of integral, sum and product symbols?
How does one control the placement of the limits of integration, summation, and multiplication: side-set vs. below/above?
These two aspects can be addressed separately.
- To control the size of the operators explicitly, one writes either
textstyle
for small symbols ordisplaystyle
for large symbols, before the command that generates the symbol.
- Side remark, inspired by an observation by @HaraldHancheOlsen: In addition to influencing the size of the operators created by the commands
sum
,prod
, etc, the declarationstextstyle
anddisplaystyle
may also affect the behavior of other subsequent commands in the current math-mode environment.
- Side remark, inspired by an observation by @HaraldHancheOlsen: In addition to influencing the size of the operators created by the commands
- To control the placement of the limits, one writes either
nolimits
(for side-set limits) orlimits
(for limits set below&above the symbol) after the command that generates the symbol.
The possibilities are illustrated in the table below.
The default settings in LaTeX are (I'm assuming the amsmath
package is loaded too):
- Inline math: Small operator symbols;
- Limits side-set for all operators;
- Note: Setting the options
sumlimits
andintlimits
when loading theamsmath
package does not affect the placement of limits when in inline math.
- Display math: Large operator symbols;
sum
,prod
,coprod
, etc: Limits set above and below operator, unless amsmath was loaded with the optionnosumlimits
.
- Note: The
sumlimits
andnosumlimits
options (and the commandslimits
andnolimits
) affect not only the appearance of summation symbols in display math mode, but also that ofprod
,coprod
,bigcup
andbigcap
, etc. See Tables 57 to 65 of the Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List for the names of these "large" -- more precisely, "variable-sized" -- math operators. The only group of variable-sized operators that's treated differently is the set of integral symbols (presumably because they're generally already quite a bit taller than the other "large" operators).
- Note: The
int
: Limits are set to the side of integral symbol unless amsmath was loaded with the optionintlimits
.
Here's the code for the preceding table:
documentclass[letterpaper]{standalone}
usepackage{array,amsmath,booktabs}
begin{document}
Huge
begin{tabular}{l
>{$textstyle}l<{$} % first math column: text style
>{$displaystyle}l<{$}} % second math column: display style
toprule
Placement of limits & multicolumn{2}{c}{Size of operators} \
cmidrule{2-3}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{small:}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{large:}\
& multicolumn{1}{l}{texttt{textbackslash textstyle}}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{texttt{textbackslash displaystyle}}\
cmidrule[lightrulewidth]{2-3}
Next to symbol: & multicolumn{1}{l}{phantom{texttt{textbackslash displaystyle }}}\
texttt{textbackslash nolimits}
& sumnolimits_{i=1}^N a_i
& sumnolimits_{i=1}^N a_i \[2ex]
& prodnolimits_{j=0}^J k_j
& prodnolimits_{j=0}^J k_j \[2.5ex]
& intnolimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x
& intnolimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x \[5ex]
Below & above symbol:\[-1ex]
texttt{textbackslash limits}
& sumlimits_{i=1}^N a_i
& sumlimits_{i=1}^N a_i \[3.5ex]
& prodlimits_{j=0}^J k_j
& prodlimits_{j=0}^J k_j \[4ex]
& intlimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x
& intlimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x \
bottomrule
end{tabular}
end{document}
Finally, some personal views on the (ab)uses of the limits
and displaystyle
commands when in inline math mode:
- It's generally not a good idea to use the
limits
command when in inline math mode. Otherwise, one is virtually assured of wrecking the appearance of the paragraph where the formula appears. - It's frequently not even necessary to indicate the full set of limits of a summation or multiplication when in inline math mode. Expressions such as
sum_i
orprod_j
are usually just fine. You may even be able to get away with omitting the subscriptsi
andj
! - Using the
displaystyle
command (to force the creation of large symbols) while in inline math mode is an even worse idea than usinglimits
.
11
Informative & educative!
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 23:07
4
Minor nit: You might have made it more clear thatdisplaystyle
andtextstyle
do not affect only the following symbol. They are declarations whose effects last until the end of the formula (or group) or until overridden.
– Harald Hanche-Olsen
Oct 27 '11 at 16:20
13
I have found thatdisplaystyle
in inline math is useful when preparingbeamer
presentations. In an itemized list, sometimes there is a short text (like two words) preceding a formula, and I don't want to waste valuable vertical space on a displayed formula but do want large symbols. Thendisplaystyle
is appropriate, since the items in a list are visually similar to displays.
– Ryan Reich
Feb 14 '12 at 19:47
2
@RyanReich: Good point about Beamer presentations' material often having different requirements than that of "ordinary" inline material. Thus, bullet point stuff can behave very much like display math material -- and hence may need to invokedisplaystyle
and/orlimits
.
– Mico
Feb 14 '12 at 23:12
add a comment |
up vote
202
down vote
accepted
up vote
202
down vote
accepted
I think there are two separate aspects to your question:
How does one control the size of integral, sum and product symbols?
How does one control the placement of the limits of integration, summation, and multiplication: side-set vs. below/above?
These two aspects can be addressed separately.
- To control the size of the operators explicitly, one writes either
textstyle
for small symbols ordisplaystyle
for large symbols, before the command that generates the symbol.
- Side remark, inspired by an observation by @HaraldHancheOlsen: In addition to influencing the size of the operators created by the commands
sum
,prod
, etc, the declarationstextstyle
anddisplaystyle
may also affect the behavior of other subsequent commands in the current math-mode environment.
- Side remark, inspired by an observation by @HaraldHancheOlsen: In addition to influencing the size of the operators created by the commands
- To control the placement of the limits, one writes either
nolimits
(for side-set limits) orlimits
(for limits set below&above the symbol) after the command that generates the symbol.
The possibilities are illustrated in the table below.
The default settings in LaTeX are (I'm assuming the amsmath
package is loaded too):
- Inline math: Small operator symbols;
- Limits side-set for all operators;
- Note: Setting the options
sumlimits
andintlimits
when loading theamsmath
package does not affect the placement of limits when in inline math.
- Display math: Large operator symbols;
sum
,prod
,coprod
, etc: Limits set above and below operator, unless amsmath was loaded with the optionnosumlimits
.
- Note: The
sumlimits
andnosumlimits
options (and the commandslimits
andnolimits
) affect not only the appearance of summation symbols in display math mode, but also that ofprod
,coprod
,bigcup
andbigcap
, etc. See Tables 57 to 65 of the Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List for the names of these "large" -- more precisely, "variable-sized" -- math operators. The only group of variable-sized operators that's treated differently is the set of integral symbols (presumably because they're generally already quite a bit taller than the other "large" operators).
- Note: The
int
: Limits are set to the side of integral symbol unless amsmath was loaded with the optionintlimits
.
Here's the code for the preceding table:
documentclass[letterpaper]{standalone}
usepackage{array,amsmath,booktabs}
begin{document}
Huge
begin{tabular}{l
>{$textstyle}l<{$} % first math column: text style
>{$displaystyle}l<{$}} % second math column: display style
toprule
Placement of limits & multicolumn{2}{c}{Size of operators} \
cmidrule{2-3}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{small:}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{large:}\
& multicolumn{1}{l}{texttt{textbackslash textstyle}}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{texttt{textbackslash displaystyle}}\
cmidrule[lightrulewidth]{2-3}
Next to symbol: & multicolumn{1}{l}{phantom{texttt{textbackslash displaystyle }}}\
texttt{textbackslash nolimits}
& sumnolimits_{i=1}^N a_i
& sumnolimits_{i=1}^N a_i \[2ex]
& prodnolimits_{j=0}^J k_j
& prodnolimits_{j=0}^J k_j \[2.5ex]
& intnolimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x
& intnolimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x \[5ex]
Below & above symbol:\[-1ex]
texttt{textbackslash limits}
& sumlimits_{i=1}^N a_i
& sumlimits_{i=1}^N a_i \[3.5ex]
& prodlimits_{j=0}^J k_j
& prodlimits_{j=0}^J k_j \[4ex]
& intlimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x
& intlimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x \
bottomrule
end{tabular}
end{document}
Finally, some personal views on the (ab)uses of the limits
and displaystyle
commands when in inline math mode:
- It's generally not a good idea to use the
limits
command when in inline math mode. Otherwise, one is virtually assured of wrecking the appearance of the paragraph where the formula appears. - It's frequently not even necessary to indicate the full set of limits of a summation or multiplication when in inline math mode. Expressions such as
sum_i
orprod_j
are usually just fine. You may even be able to get away with omitting the subscriptsi
andj
! - Using the
displaystyle
command (to force the creation of large symbols) while in inline math mode is an even worse idea than usinglimits
.
I think there are two separate aspects to your question:
How does one control the size of integral, sum and product symbols?
How does one control the placement of the limits of integration, summation, and multiplication: side-set vs. below/above?
These two aspects can be addressed separately.
- To control the size of the operators explicitly, one writes either
textstyle
for small symbols ordisplaystyle
for large symbols, before the command that generates the symbol.
- Side remark, inspired by an observation by @HaraldHancheOlsen: In addition to influencing the size of the operators created by the commands
sum
,prod
, etc, the declarationstextstyle
anddisplaystyle
may also affect the behavior of other subsequent commands in the current math-mode environment.
- Side remark, inspired by an observation by @HaraldHancheOlsen: In addition to influencing the size of the operators created by the commands
- To control the placement of the limits, one writes either
nolimits
(for side-set limits) orlimits
(for limits set below&above the symbol) after the command that generates the symbol.
The possibilities are illustrated in the table below.
The default settings in LaTeX are (I'm assuming the amsmath
package is loaded too):
- Inline math: Small operator symbols;
- Limits side-set for all operators;
- Note: Setting the options
sumlimits
andintlimits
when loading theamsmath
package does not affect the placement of limits when in inline math.
- Display math: Large operator symbols;
sum
,prod
,coprod
, etc: Limits set above and below operator, unless amsmath was loaded with the optionnosumlimits
.
- Note: The
sumlimits
andnosumlimits
options (and the commandslimits
andnolimits
) affect not only the appearance of summation symbols in display math mode, but also that ofprod
,coprod
,bigcup
andbigcap
, etc. See Tables 57 to 65 of the Comprehensive LaTeX Symbol List for the names of these "large" -- more precisely, "variable-sized" -- math operators. The only group of variable-sized operators that's treated differently is the set of integral symbols (presumably because they're generally already quite a bit taller than the other "large" operators).
- Note: The
int
: Limits are set to the side of integral symbol unless amsmath was loaded with the optionintlimits
.
Here's the code for the preceding table:
documentclass[letterpaper]{standalone}
usepackage{array,amsmath,booktabs}
begin{document}
Huge
begin{tabular}{l
>{$textstyle}l<{$} % first math column: text style
>{$displaystyle}l<{$}} % second math column: display style
toprule
Placement of limits & multicolumn{2}{c}{Size of operators} \
cmidrule{2-3}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{small:}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{large:}\
& multicolumn{1}{l}{texttt{textbackslash textstyle}}
& multicolumn{1}{l}{texttt{textbackslash displaystyle}}\
cmidrule[lightrulewidth]{2-3}
Next to symbol: & multicolumn{1}{l}{phantom{texttt{textbackslash displaystyle }}}\
texttt{textbackslash nolimits}
& sumnolimits_{i=1}^N a_i
& sumnolimits_{i=1}^N a_i \[2ex]
& prodnolimits_{j=0}^J k_j
& prodnolimits_{j=0}^J k_j \[2.5ex]
& intnolimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x
& intnolimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x \[5ex]
Below & above symbol:\[-1ex]
texttt{textbackslash limits}
& sumlimits_{i=1}^N a_i
& sumlimits_{i=1}^N a_i \[3.5ex]
& prodlimits_{j=0}^J k_j
& prodlimits_{j=0}^J k_j \[4ex]
& intlimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x
& intlimits_{-infty}^infty f(x),mathrm{d}x \
bottomrule
end{tabular}
end{document}
Finally, some personal views on the (ab)uses of the limits
and displaystyle
commands when in inline math mode:
- It's generally not a good idea to use the
limits
command when in inline math mode. Otherwise, one is virtually assured of wrecking the appearance of the paragraph where the formula appears. - It's frequently not even necessary to indicate the full set of limits of a summation or multiplication when in inline math mode. Expressions such as
sum_i
orprod_j
are usually just fine. You may even be able to get away with omitting the subscriptsi
andj
! - Using the
displaystyle
command (to force the creation of large symbols) while in inline math mode is an even worse idea than usinglimits
.
edited May 28 '17 at 14:19
answered Oct 26 '11 at 21:53
Mico
270k30367751
270k30367751
11
Informative & educative!
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 23:07
4
Minor nit: You might have made it more clear thatdisplaystyle
andtextstyle
do not affect only the following symbol. They are declarations whose effects last until the end of the formula (or group) or until overridden.
– Harald Hanche-Olsen
Oct 27 '11 at 16:20
13
I have found thatdisplaystyle
in inline math is useful when preparingbeamer
presentations. In an itemized list, sometimes there is a short text (like two words) preceding a formula, and I don't want to waste valuable vertical space on a displayed formula but do want large symbols. Thendisplaystyle
is appropriate, since the items in a list are visually similar to displays.
– Ryan Reich
Feb 14 '12 at 19:47
2
@RyanReich: Good point about Beamer presentations' material often having different requirements than that of "ordinary" inline material. Thus, bullet point stuff can behave very much like display math material -- and hence may need to invokedisplaystyle
and/orlimits
.
– Mico
Feb 14 '12 at 23:12
add a comment |
11
Informative & educative!
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 23:07
4
Minor nit: You might have made it more clear thatdisplaystyle
andtextstyle
do not affect only the following symbol. They are declarations whose effects last until the end of the formula (or group) or until overridden.
– Harald Hanche-Olsen
Oct 27 '11 at 16:20
13
I have found thatdisplaystyle
in inline math is useful when preparingbeamer
presentations. In an itemized list, sometimes there is a short text (like two words) preceding a formula, and I don't want to waste valuable vertical space on a displayed formula but do want large symbols. Thendisplaystyle
is appropriate, since the items in a list are visually similar to displays.
– Ryan Reich
Feb 14 '12 at 19:47
2
@RyanReich: Good point about Beamer presentations' material often having different requirements than that of "ordinary" inline material. Thus, bullet point stuff can behave very much like display math material -- and hence may need to invokedisplaystyle
and/orlimits
.
– Mico
Feb 14 '12 at 23:12
11
11
Informative & educative!
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 23:07
Informative & educative!
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 23:07
4
4
Minor nit: You might have made it more clear that
displaystyle
and textstyle
do not affect only the following symbol. They are declarations whose effects last until the end of the formula (or group) or until overridden.– Harald Hanche-Olsen
Oct 27 '11 at 16:20
Minor nit: You might have made it more clear that
displaystyle
and textstyle
do not affect only the following symbol. They are declarations whose effects last until the end of the formula (or group) or until overridden.– Harald Hanche-Olsen
Oct 27 '11 at 16:20
13
13
I have found that
displaystyle
in inline math is useful when preparing beamer
presentations. In an itemized list, sometimes there is a short text (like two words) preceding a formula, and I don't want to waste valuable vertical space on a displayed formula but do want large symbols. Then displaystyle
is appropriate, since the items in a list are visually similar to displays.– Ryan Reich
Feb 14 '12 at 19:47
I have found that
displaystyle
in inline math is useful when preparing beamer
presentations. In an itemized list, sometimes there is a short text (like two words) preceding a formula, and I don't want to waste valuable vertical space on a displayed formula but do want large symbols. Then displaystyle
is appropriate, since the items in a list are visually similar to displays.– Ryan Reich
Feb 14 '12 at 19:47
2
2
@RyanReich: Good point about Beamer presentations' material often having different requirements than that of "ordinary" inline material. Thus, bullet point stuff can behave very much like display math material -- and hence may need to invoke
displaystyle
and/or limits
.– Mico
Feb 14 '12 at 23:12
@RyanReich: Good point about Beamer presentations' material often having different requirements than that of "ordinary" inline material. Thus, bullet point stuff can behave very much like display math material -- and hence may need to invoke
displaystyle
and/or limits
.– Mico
Feb 14 '12 at 23:12
add a comment |
up vote
44
down vote
The other answers are excellent, and normally I would not try to change the behavior of inline functions. However, there is one case where I wish inline functions to behave just like displayed functions. That is when I write exams. I am willing to compromise on typesetting for readability. If you put
everymath{displaystyle}
in your preamble, every equation will be typeset in that manner, and you don't have to put displaystyle
in every equation. Of course, if you are looking to change just a few equations, then displaystyle
is easy to use.
1
the only answer that actually solves this problem
– Håkon
Aug 20 '15 at 4:23
4
@IllegalImmigrant Unfortunately, it's the wrong answer. It has several upvotes, probably because of simplicity; but this simplicity is at the expense of good typography. No, doingeverymath{displaystyle}
is generally a bad idea.
– egreg
Oct 15 '15 at 12:20
add a comment |
up vote
44
down vote
The other answers are excellent, and normally I would not try to change the behavior of inline functions. However, there is one case where I wish inline functions to behave just like displayed functions. That is when I write exams. I am willing to compromise on typesetting for readability. If you put
everymath{displaystyle}
in your preamble, every equation will be typeset in that manner, and you don't have to put displaystyle
in every equation. Of course, if you are looking to change just a few equations, then displaystyle
is easy to use.
1
the only answer that actually solves this problem
– Håkon
Aug 20 '15 at 4:23
4
@IllegalImmigrant Unfortunately, it's the wrong answer. It has several upvotes, probably because of simplicity; but this simplicity is at the expense of good typography. No, doingeverymath{displaystyle}
is generally a bad idea.
– egreg
Oct 15 '15 at 12:20
add a comment |
up vote
44
down vote
up vote
44
down vote
The other answers are excellent, and normally I would not try to change the behavior of inline functions. However, there is one case where I wish inline functions to behave just like displayed functions. That is when I write exams. I am willing to compromise on typesetting for readability. If you put
everymath{displaystyle}
in your preamble, every equation will be typeset in that manner, and you don't have to put displaystyle
in every equation. Of course, if you are looking to change just a few equations, then displaystyle
is easy to use.
The other answers are excellent, and normally I would not try to change the behavior of inline functions. However, there is one case where I wish inline functions to behave just like displayed functions. That is when I write exams. I am willing to compromise on typesetting for readability. If you put
everymath{displaystyle}
in your preamble, every equation will be typeset in that manner, and you don't have to put displaystyle
in every equation. Of course, if you are looking to change just a few equations, then displaystyle
is easy to use.
edited Oct 27 '11 at 4:32
Werner
431k599501629
431k599501629
answered Oct 27 '11 at 4:25
S. McKay
63144
63144
1
the only answer that actually solves this problem
– Håkon
Aug 20 '15 at 4:23
4
@IllegalImmigrant Unfortunately, it's the wrong answer. It has several upvotes, probably because of simplicity; but this simplicity is at the expense of good typography. No, doingeverymath{displaystyle}
is generally a bad idea.
– egreg
Oct 15 '15 at 12:20
add a comment |
1
the only answer that actually solves this problem
– Håkon
Aug 20 '15 at 4:23
4
@IllegalImmigrant Unfortunately, it's the wrong answer. It has several upvotes, probably because of simplicity; but this simplicity is at the expense of good typography. No, doingeverymath{displaystyle}
is generally a bad idea.
– egreg
Oct 15 '15 at 12:20
1
1
the only answer that actually solves this problem
– Håkon
Aug 20 '15 at 4:23
the only answer that actually solves this problem
– Håkon
Aug 20 '15 at 4:23
4
4
@IllegalImmigrant Unfortunately, it's the wrong answer. It has several upvotes, probably because of simplicity; but this simplicity is at the expense of good typography. No, doing
everymath{displaystyle}
is generally a bad idea.– egreg
Oct 15 '15 at 12:20
@IllegalImmigrant Unfortunately, it's the wrong answer. It has several upvotes, probably because of simplicity; but this simplicity is at the expense of good typography. No, doing
everymath{displaystyle}
is generally a bad idea.– egreg
Oct 15 '15 at 12:20
add a comment |
up vote
44
down vote
Good typography relies on the balance of all aspects of black and white on the page. Uniformly spaced lines for the ordinary text make for good legibility. That's why some symbols, that in display are rendered with limits above and below, are set with limits on the side when used in in-line formulas.
I too, when I began to use TeX, tried to set limits for sums above and below also in in-line formulas, but I soon realized that it's wrong: two white bands separated that line from the next ones.
For that very reason the symbols for summation and integral are set in two different sizes: a smaller one for in-line formulas, a larger one for displayed formulas that don't have spacing constraints.
Displayed formulas are set using (automatically) displaystyle
, so
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
would produce the same symbol used in displayed formulas and set limits above and below. But this will damage the balance of the page beyond repair. A less invasive construction
$sumlimits_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
and its sibling
$limlimits_{ntoinfty}f(x)$
will do less damage to the page, but will nevertheless spoil it.
Such constructions have their use, for examples in tables where TeX would use in-line math mode. But I will never suggest to use them in normal text.
2
While true, your answer reads a little patronizing. I think we can treat users of this site as adults. if somebody asks how to do something, we should not assume that they do not know what they are talking about, or at-least should not let our answer show that... :-)
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:32
22
@YossiFarjoun, while egreg's response is a bit sharp, I don't think it is always a bad idea to question someone's purpose for wanting to achieve a certain look with TeX. As someone who started using LaTeX not too long ago, I must credit my still-improving sense for good typesetting to people who told me that I didn't actually want to do what I said I wanted to do. I would be a poorer TeXer were it not for them. In general, it seems to be a feature of well-designed systems that learning them requires shifting one's approach to problems.
– JohnJamesSmith
Oct 26 '11 at 22:08
2
That's a fantastic new version egreg. Definitely a more complete answer to the question.
– akdom
Oct 27 '11 at 23:37
1
@dh87 That's simply wrong, particularly in exponents.
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:36
1
@dh87 Sorry: do as he likes. But be still thinking it's wrong.;-)
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:53
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
44
down vote
Good typography relies on the balance of all aspects of black and white on the page. Uniformly spaced lines for the ordinary text make for good legibility. That's why some symbols, that in display are rendered with limits above and below, are set with limits on the side when used in in-line formulas.
I too, when I began to use TeX, tried to set limits for sums above and below also in in-line formulas, but I soon realized that it's wrong: two white bands separated that line from the next ones.
For that very reason the symbols for summation and integral are set in two different sizes: a smaller one for in-line formulas, a larger one for displayed formulas that don't have spacing constraints.
Displayed formulas are set using (automatically) displaystyle
, so
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
would produce the same symbol used in displayed formulas and set limits above and below. But this will damage the balance of the page beyond repair. A less invasive construction
$sumlimits_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
and its sibling
$limlimits_{ntoinfty}f(x)$
will do less damage to the page, but will nevertheless spoil it.
Such constructions have their use, for examples in tables where TeX would use in-line math mode. But I will never suggest to use them in normal text.
2
While true, your answer reads a little patronizing. I think we can treat users of this site as adults. if somebody asks how to do something, we should not assume that they do not know what they are talking about, or at-least should not let our answer show that... :-)
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:32
22
@YossiFarjoun, while egreg's response is a bit sharp, I don't think it is always a bad idea to question someone's purpose for wanting to achieve a certain look with TeX. As someone who started using LaTeX not too long ago, I must credit my still-improving sense for good typesetting to people who told me that I didn't actually want to do what I said I wanted to do. I would be a poorer TeXer were it not for them. In general, it seems to be a feature of well-designed systems that learning them requires shifting one's approach to problems.
– JohnJamesSmith
Oct 26 '11 at 22:08
2
That's a fantastic new version egreg. Definitely a more complete answer to the question.
– akdom
Oct 27 '11 at 23:37
1
@dh87 That's simply wrong, particularly in exponents.
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:36
1
@dh87 Sorry: do as he likes. But be still thinking it's wrong.;-)
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:53
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
44
down vote
up vote
44
down vote
Good typography relies on the balance of all aspects of black and white on the page. Uniformly spaced lines for the ordinary text make for good legibility. That's why some symbols, that in display are rendered with limits above and below, are set with limits on the side when used in in-line formulas.
I too, when I began to use TeX, tried to set limits for sums above and below also in in-line formulas, but I soon realized that it's wrong: two white bands separated that line from the next ones.
For that very reason the symbols for summation and integral are set in two different sizes: a smaller one for in-line formulas, a larger one for displayed formulas that don't have spacing constraints.
Displayed formulas are set using (automatically) displaystyle
, so
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
would produce the same symbol used in displayed formulas and set limits above and below. But this will damage the balance of the page beyond repair. A less invasive construction
$sumlimits_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
and its sibling
$limlimits_{ntoinfty}f(x)$
will do less damage to the page, but will nevertheless spoil it.
Such constructions have their use, for examples in tables where TeX would use in-line math mode. But I will never suggest to use them in normal text.
Good typography relies on the balance of all aspects of black and white on the page. Uniformly spaced lines for the ordinary text make for good legibility. That's why some symbols, that in display are rendered with limits above and below, are set with limits on the side when used in in-line formulas.
I too, when I began to use TeX, tried to set limits for sums above and below also in in-line formulas, but I soon realized that it's wrong: two white bands separated that line from the next ones.
For that very reason the symbols for summation and integral are set in two different sizes: a smaller one for in-line formulas, a larger one for displayed formulas that don't have spacing constraints.
Displayed formulas are set using (automatically) displaystyle
, so
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
would produce the same symbol used in displayed formulas and set limits above and below. But this will damage the balance of the page beyond repair. A less invasive construction
$sumlimits_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
and its sibling
$limlimits_{ntoinfty}f(x)$
will do less damage to the page, but will nevertheless spoil it.
Such constructions have their use, for examples in tables where TeX would use in-line math mode. But I will never suggest to use them in normal text.
edited Mar 15 '17 at 6:48
answered Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
egreg
699k8518613133
699k8518613133
2
While true, your answer reads a little patronizing. I think we can treat users of this site as adults. if somebody asks how to do something, we should not assume that they do not know what they are talking about, or at-least should not let our answer show that... :-)
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:32
22
@YossiFarjoun, while egreg's response is a bit sharp, I don't think it is always a bad idea to question someone's purpose for wanting to achieve a certain look with TeX. As someone who started using LaTeX not too long ago, I must credit my still-improving sense for good typesetting to people who told me that I didn't actually want to do what I said I wanted to do. I would be a poorer TeXer were it not for them. In general, it seems to be a feature of well-designed systems that learning them requires shifting one's approach to problems.
– JohnJamesSmith
Oct 26 '11 at 22:08
2
That's a fantastic new version egreg. Definitely a more complete answer to the question.
– akdom
Oct 27 '11 at 23:37
1
@dh87 That's simply wrong, particularly in exponents.
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:36
1
@dh87 Sorry: do as he likes. But be still thinking it's wrong.;-)
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:53
|
show 5 more comments
2
While true, your answer reads a little patronizing. I think we can treat users of this site as adults. if somebody asks how to do something, we should not assume that they do not know what they are talking about, or at-least should not let our answer show that... :-)
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:32
22
@YossiFarjoun, while egreg's response is a bit sharp, I don't think it is always a bad idea to question someone's purpose for wanting to achieve a certain look with TeX. As someone who started using LaTeX not too long ago, I must credit my still-improving sense for good typesetting to people who told me that I didn't actually want to do what I said I wanted to do. I would be a poorer TeXer were it not for them. In general, it seems to be a feature of well-designed systems that learning them requires shifting one's approach to problems.
– JohnJamesSmith
Oct 26 '11 at 22:08
2
That's a fantastic new version egreg. Definitely a more complete answer to the question.
– akdom
Oct 27 '11 at 23:37
1
@dh87 That's simply wrong, particularly in exponents.
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:36
1
@dh87 Sorry: do as he likes. But be still thinking it's wrong.;-)
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:53
2
2
While true, your answer reads a little patronizing. I think we can treat users of this site as adults. if somebody asks how to do something, we should not assume that they do not know what they are talking about, or at-least should not let our answer show that... :-)
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:32
While true, your answer reads a little patronizing. I think we can treat users of this site as adults. if somebody asks how to do something, we should not assume that they do not know what they are talking about, or at-least should not let our answer show that... :-)
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:32
22
22
@YossiFarjoun, while egreg's response is a bit sharp, I don't think it is always a bad idea to question someone's purpose for wanting to achieve a certain look with TeX. As someone who started using LaTeX not too long ago, I must credit my still-improving sense for good typesetting to people who told me that I didn't actually want to do what I said I wanted to do. I would be a poorer TeXer were it not for them. In general, it seems to be a feature of well-designed systems that learning them requires shifting one's approach to problems.
– JohnJamesSmith
Oct 26 '11 at 22:08
@YossiFarjoun, while egreg's response is a bit sharp, I don't think it is always a bad idea to question someone's purpose for wanting to achieve a certain look with TeX. As someone who started using LaTeX not too long ago, I must credit my still-improving sense for good typesetting to people who told me that I didn't actually want to do what I said I wanted to do. I would be a poorer TeXer were it not for them. In general, it seems to be a feature of well-designed systems that learning them requires shifting one's approach to problems.
– JohnJamesSmith
Oct 26 '11 at 22:08
2
2
That's a fantastic new version egreg. Definitely a more complete answer to the question.
– akdom
Oct 27 '11 at 23:37
That's a fantastic new version egreg. Definitely a more complete answer to the question.
– akdom
Oct 27 '11 at 23:37
1
1
@dh87 That's simply wrong, particularly in exponents.
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:36
@dh87 That's simply wrong, particularly in exponents.
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:36
1
1
@dh87 Sorry: do as he likes. But be still thinking it's wrong.
;-)
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:53
@dh87 Sorry: do as he likes. But be still thinking it's wrong.
;-)
– egreg
May 1 '16 at 15:53
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
The solution you seek is to use the displaystyle
command within the inline environment as such.
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
This will give the nice effect of the starting term being underneath the sigma and the maximum value above while keeping the symbols inline.
13
Interesting how the presentation is done in the 3rd person.
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 20:55
I figured that it would be the most immediately accessible for people quickly looking for an answer :) .
– akdom
Oct 26 '11 at 20:58
Well, it a wrong answer.
– egreg
Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
1
@egreg: The answer isn't wrong....it answers the question exactly. I think that the question is wrong...but that's what down-voting the question is for...
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:33
17
I have to admit that I don't like the way that the answer is phrased (irrespective of whether or not it is correct). Answering ones own question is absolutely fine, but do it honestly not pretending that you aren't the person who asked the question.
– Loop Space
Oct 27 '11 at 6:36
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
11
down vote
The solution you seek is to use the displaystyle
command within the inline environment as such.
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
This will give the nice effect of the starting term being underneath the sigma and the maximum value above while keeping the symbols inline.
13
Interesting how the presentation is done in the 3rd person.
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 20:55
I figured that it would be the most immediately accessible for people quickly looking for an answer :) .
– akdom
Oct 26 '11 at 20:58
Well, it a wrong answer.
– egreg
Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
1
@egreg: The answer isn't wrong....it answers the question exactly. I think that the question is wrong...but that's what down-voting the question is for...
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:33
17
I have to admit that I don't like the way that the answer is phrased (irrespective of whether or not it is correct). Answering ones own question is absolutely fine, but do it honestly not pretending that you aren't the person who asked the question.
– Loop Space
Oct 27 '11 at 6:36
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
The solution you seek is to use the displaystyle
command within the inline environment as such.
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
This will give the nice effect of the starting term being underneath the sigma and the maximum value above while keeping the symbols inline.
The solution you seek is to use the displaystyle
command within the inline environment as such.
$displaystylesum_{n=1}^{x} n^2$
This will give the nice effect of the starting term being underneath the sigma and the maximum value above while keeping the symbols inline.
edited 21 hours ago
BalinKingOfMoria
1033
1033
answered Oct 26 '11 at 20:51
akdom
8902710
8902710
13
Interesting how the presentation is done in the 3rd person.
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 20:55
I figured that it would be the most immediately accessible for people quickly looking for an answer :) .
– akdom
Oct 26 '11 at 20:58
Well, it a wrong answer.
– egreg
Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
1
@egreg: The answer isn't wrong....it answers the question exactly. I think that the question is wrong...but that's what down-voting the question is for...
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:33
17
I have to admit that I don't like the way that the answer is phrased (irrespective of whether or not it is correct). Answering ones own question is absolutely fine, but do it honestly not pretending that you aren't the person who asked the question.
– Loop Space
Oct 27 '11 at 6:36
|
show 1 more comment
13
Interesting how the presentation is done in the 3rd person.
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 20:55
I figured that it would be the most immediately accessible for people quickly looking for an answer :) .
– akdom
Oct 26 '11 at 20:58
Well, it a wrong answer.
– egreg
Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
1
@egreg: The answer isn't wrong....it answers the question exactly. I think that the question is wrong...but that's what down-voting the question is for...
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:33
17
I have to admit that I don't like the way that the answer is phrased (irrespective of whether or not it is correct). Answering ones own question is absolutely fine, but do it honestly not pretending that you aren't the person who asked the question.
– Loop Space
Oct 27 '11 at 6:36
13
13
Interesting how the presentation is done in the 3rd person.
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 20:55
Interesting how the presentation is done in the 3rd person.
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 20:55
I figured that it would be the most immediately accessible for people quickly looking for an answer :) .
– akdom
Oct 26 '11 at 20:58
I figured that it would be the most immediately accessible for people quickly looking for an answer :) .
– akdom
Oct 26 '11 at 20:58
Well, it a wrong answer.
– egreg
Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
Well, it a wrong answer.
– egreg
Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
1
1
@egreg: The answer isn't wrong....it answers the question exactly. I think that the question is wrong...but that's what down-voting the question is for...
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:33
@egreg: The answer isn't wrong....it answers the question exactly. I think that the question is wrong...but that's what down-voting the question is for...
– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:33
17
17
I have to admit that I don't like the way that the answer is phrased (irrespective of whether or not it is correct). Answering ones own question is absolutely fine, but do it honestly not pretending that you aren't the person who asked the question.
– Loop Space
Oct 27 '11 at 6:36
I have to admit that I don't like the way that the answer is phrased (irrespective of whether or not it is correct). Answering ones own question is absolutely fine, but do it honestly not pretending that you aren't the person who asked the question.
– Loop Space
Oct 27 '11 at 6:36
|
show 1 more comment
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%2f32824%2fshow-inline-math-as-if-it-were-display-math%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
3
For reference on the use of
[...]
or$$...$$
, see: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/503/why-is-preferable-to– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 20:58
2
If the effect you want is only to have the limits look like
displaystyle
(but not the larger size) you might want to rephrase the question...in that case you might want to look atlimits
.– Yossi Farjoun
Oct 26 '11 at 21:00
Related question: Sums in math mode: how to display index under the sigma sign?
– Werner
Oct 26 '11 at 21:03