Re: LaTeX question


"Nathan Sanders" <nsanders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nsanders-4FD389.18563011052007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <Q_51i.6994$eY1.2790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Johnny" <nomailthanx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm afraid, Nathan, I have been directed towards so much, and so many
different documents, and so many different preferable starting-points, if
only through the links suggested on this generous NG, that I cannot but
malfunction.
The symbol { was, for me, not so long ago 'curly brackets', not braces.
Thanks, though, for your advice. I must say I remain confused, what with
Maarten having told me not to use $ in display equations, and you -
apparently contradictorily, having it directly before the 'M' in my
equation line.

I only made the changes to your sample that would make it produce no
errors. I wasn't concerned with the details of formatting, just the
basic syntax of LaTeX.

Enclosing your math in dollars signs, like $a+b$, produces math that
is suitably sized for use within running text, like this sentence.
Enclosing math in \[ \] produces displayed math, which is formatted
differently (automatically centered, space above and below, some
symbols are larger, etc.), for use between paragraphs, like this:

\[
M = \left[\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}\right]
\]

I didn't know (or care) whether you wanted in-line or displaystyle
math for your matrix, because the problems I was correcting are more
general than that, and would apply to *any* matrix, where in-line or
displayed.

And honestly, this is covered in the first three pages of
Mathmode.pdf, which you should have read.

You've got to understand that there a huge amount of
information coming at a novice LaTeX-user like myself, as regards the
standardisation of the commands, so what seems obvious and fundamentally
standard to the regular user might just have fallen through the net for
the
likes of myself.

And you've got to understand that your manner of asking questions is
not very efficient or conducive to earning goodwill from the people
you are asking to devote their time and energy. Two very important
documents were pointed out to you (lshort.pdf and Mathmode.pdf), and
your continued questions make it very clear you haven't read them.

I continue to insist: it is a matter of style of writing. I am familiar with
both those documents, but do not know (or care) what inspired the authors to
write in such truly dreadful terms of explanation.
Let me draw a parallel. About 2 years ago I was learning an advanced package
relating to AutoCAD. It explains everything in very, very basic terms, which
of course is good. It was far better than the kind of expanations that are
ofered for TeX. But there as one very, very simple step that was omitted
from an exercise, that an expert, seeing it, would think so obvious that it
would not even enter their consciousness, which is probably why it eludd all
the layers of proof-reading. But when you are learning something, you are
being bombarded with so much information that you feel that for the sake of
progression you have to take some things as absolutely Gospel, right down to
the tiniest details, such as the steps presented to you in the guidelines;
and when they fail you it is like the whole substrate of your learning for
several tortured hours - as it was in my case with the AutoCAD example,
which I later found had been noted by other users also - is no true
substrate at all; besides the massive cost in time (and therefore money) and
untold stress, it's something that is in all honesty best considered no
longer to be trusted. It really is best to move on from something that lets
you down so badly -- no doubt about it. And so it has been with these
documents that are TeX guides, because the authors seem not to realise quite
how much, among the subtle nuances of every tiniest thing they say, is taken
by them to be understood by the reader, when in fact there might be a
variety of different interpretations. Perhaps a lot of the problem is that
people are reading them are all from different social, linguistic and
academic backgrounds, and have no determinate common ground from which their
learning curve gets underway. You might see what I mean if you were to read
the first post that asked me to send to this NG a 'minimal example'.
Frankly, I did not know what on earth this meant, yet nobody here seemed to
imagine I could ever have any problem understanding the request.
So I maintain that if someone, of a rare talent in writing up technical
information in a comprehensible form, could write a really good user's
guide, - and as I said in one of my first replies to Oliver, I bet he
could - there's money in it....
Cheers.







Please note that "skimming for the answer to a specific question" is
*not* the same as "reading"! You aren't experienced enough to know
what your problems are, so you can't very well expect to find them on
your own until you learn the basics. Read the introductory material
and test out the examples they give, so that you can see them in
action.

A further problem is that when you report your problems here, you do
so in a manner that makes it difficult for people to help. As has
been mentioned a couple of times, you need to post minimal examples
that demonstrate the problem and be *very* precise about what the
problem is... "they don't look right" is not precise enough, because
we can't read your mind.

Not only do minimal examples help us pinpoint the problem more
quickly, but very often, the whole process of constructing a minimal
example will help you discover the error all on your own, which is
much more valuable than having to run to the experts every time you've
got an extra { somewhere.

Nathan

--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why do so many people hate or have trouble with math? Your input is needed!
    ... Basic math skills are as important as basic literary skills. ... you need to drill students in the basic multiplcation tables ... to understand the basics of descriptive statistics, ... learning how to read "interesting". ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Girl Scout cookie sellers scammed
    ... certainly a necessary part of math education at that level. ... It helped no one and delayed learning basic math. ... educators keep trying to improve that which needs no improvement. ... snivel they are tired of hearing "let's get back to basics". ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Quantum Physics for mere humans
    ... I’m currently in the process of learning the basics of Quantum Physics. ... I’m also not a very strong math person …aka I have not done calculus at all. ... How do I get a good grounding in Quantum Physics? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Application of algebra
    ... position now that school is out. ... I'm not talking about what you are calling "higher math" ... When I went to school we had Algebra I, Algebra II, ... Learning is a very personal process that demands that you first work ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: U.S. science education lags, study finds
    ... Descrete math and probability seems more applicable ... to which I would add speaking, but these aren't an education, they are ... the tools of learning and communicating. ... I have ever mis-typed a problem into my calculator. ...
    (talk.origins)