Command for vector dot with some power
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
So what I am trying to type is the square of the derivative of vector x. I tried dot{vec{x}}^{,2} as well as dot{vec{x}^2}, but the outputs came out to be very offset. Is there a correct way to do this?
The code I used is:
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m dot{vec{x^2}}
end{equation}
which give me
math-mode symbols accents
edited Dec 7 at 5:15
Mico
272k30369756
asked Dec 7 at 4:59
Kane Billiot
334
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
So what I am trying to type is the square of the derivative of vector x. I tried dot{vec{x}}^{,2} as well as dot{vec{x}^2}, but the outputs came out to be very offset. Is there a correct way to do this?
The code I used is:
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m dot{vec{x^2}}
end{equation}
which give me
math-mode symbols accents
edited Dec 7 at 5:15
Mico
272k30369756
asked Dec 7 at 4:59
Kane Billiot
334
Welcome to TeX.SE! Can you please, as usual here -- show us a short compilable code and an screenshot of your result?
– Kurt
Dec 7 at 5:04
1
One reason more for not using the arrow for vectors.
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:46
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
So what I am trying to type is the square of the derivative of vector x. I tried dot{vec{x}}^{,2} as well as dot{vec{x}^2}, but the outputs came out to be very offset. Is there a correct way to do this?
The code I used is:
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m dot{vec{x^2}}
end{equation}
which give me
math-mode symbols accents
edited Dec 7 at 5:15
Mico
272k30369756
asked Dec 7 at 4:59
Kane Billiot
334
So what I am trying to type is the square of the derivative of vector x. I tried dot{vec{x}}^{,2} as well as dot{vec{x}^2}, but the outputs came out to be very offset. Is there a correct way to do this?
The code I used is:
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m dot{vec{x^2}}
end{equation}
which give me
math-mode symbols accents
math-mode symbols accents
edited Dec 7 at 5:15
Mico
272k30369756
asked Dec 7 at 4:59
Kane Billiot
334
edited Dec 7 at 5:15
Mico
272k30369756
asked Dec 7 at 4:59
Kane Billiot
334
edited Dec 7 at 5:15
Mico
272k30369756
edited Dec 7 at 5:15
Mico
272k30369756
edited Dec 7 at 5:15
Mico
272k30369756
272k30369756
asked Dec 7 at 4:59
Kane Billiot
334
asked Dec 7 at 4:59
Kane Billiot
334
asked Dec 7 at 4:59
Kane Billiot
334
334
Welcome to TeX.SE! Can you please, as usual here -- show us a short compilable code and an screenshot of your result?
– Kurt
Dec 7 at 5:04
1
One reason more for not using the arrow for vectors.
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:46
add a comment |
Welcome to TeX.SE! Can you please, as usual here -- show us a short compilable code and an screenshot of your result?
– Kurt
Dec 7 at 5:04
1
One reason more for not using the arrow for vectors.
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:46
Welcome to TeX.SE! Can you please, as usual here -- show us a short compilable code and an screenshot of your result?
– Kurt
Dec 7 at 5:04
Welcome to TeX.SE! Can you please, as usual here -- show us a short compilable code and an screenshot of your result?
– Kurt
Dec 7 at 5:04
1
1
One reason more for not using the arrow for vectors.
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:46
One reason more for not using the arrow for vectors.
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:46
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
I'd probably do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m Dot{vec{x}}^2
end{equation}
end{document}
because the Lagrange function is a function of the square of the time derivative of x (and not the time derivative of the square of x).
answered Dec 7 at 5:26
marmot
83.1k493178
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
@KaneBilliot Short answer:Dotworks also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
1
@marmot - For the case at hand, usingdotandDotproduce the same result.
– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
1
At the beginning,amsmathprovided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version ofamsmathmade the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:46
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
The first or third option below may be close to what you're looking for. Or, switch from Newton-style to Leibniz-style notation for the derivative, as shown by the fourth option (newly fixed to incorporated @marmot's comment). A separate comment: to make the frac{1}{2} term less visually dominant, consider using tfrac instead of frac.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath} % for tfrac macro and general accent-placement support
begin{document}
[
tfrac{1}{2}m dot{vec{x}} ^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^{,2} quad
tfrac{1}{2}mbigl(tfrac{mathrm{d}vec{x}}{mathrm{d}t}bigr)^{!2}
]
end{document}
answered Dec 7 at 5:28
Mico
272k30369756
2
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.;-)
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:52
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 10:25
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter$d$that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative?frac{dd}{dt}? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesettingfrac{dd}{dt}.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 13:46
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 14:08
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the typefrac{dd}{dt}. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?
– marmot
Dec 7 at 19:10
|
show 1 more comment
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',
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%2f463627%2fcommand-for-vector-dot-with-some-power%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
I'd probably do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m Dot{vec{x}}^2
end{equation}
end{document}
because the Lagrange function is a function of the square of the time derivative of x (and not the time derivative of the square of x).
answered Dec 7 at 5:26
marmot
83.1k493178
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
@KaneBilliot Short answer:Dotworks also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
1
@marmot - For the case at hand, usingdotandDotproduce the same result.
– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
1
At the beginning,amsmathprovided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version ofamsmathmade the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:46
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
I'd probably do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m Dot{vec{x}}^2
end{equation}
end{document}
because the Lagrange function is a function of the square of the time derivative of x (and not the time derivative of the square of x).
answered Dec 7 at 5:26
marmot
83.1k493178
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
@KaneBilliot Short answer:Dotworks also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
1
@marmot - For the case at hand, usingdotandDotproduce the same result.
– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
1
At the beginning,amsmathprovided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version ofamsmathmade the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:46
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
I'd probably do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m Dot{vec{x}}^2
end{equation}
end{document}
because the Lagrange function is a function of the square of the time derivative of x (and not the time derivative of the square of x).
answered Dec 7 at 5:26
marmot
83.1k493178
I'd probably do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m Dot{vec{x}}^2
end{equation}
end{document}
because the Lagrange function is a function of the square of the time derivative of x (and not the time derivative of the square of x).
answered Dec 7 at 5:26
marmot
83.1k493178
answered Dec 7 at 5:26
marmot
83.1k493178
answered Dec 7 at 5:26
marmot
83.1k493178
answered Dec 7 at 5:26
marmot
83.1k493178
83.1k493178
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
@KaneBilliot Short answer:Dotworks also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
1
@marmot - For the case at hand, usingdotandDotproduce the same result.
– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
1
At the beginning,amsmathprovided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version ofamsmathmade the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:46
|
show 2 more comments
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
@KaneBilliot Short answer:Dotworks also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
1
@marmot - For the case at hand, usingdotandDotproduce the same result.
– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
1
At the beginning,amsmathprovided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version ofamsmathmade the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:46
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
@KaneBilliot Short answer:
Dot works also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
@KaneBilliot Short answer:
Dot works also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
1
1
@marmot - For the case at hand, using
dot and Dot produce the same result.– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
@marmot - For the case at hand, using
dot and Dot produce the same result.– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
1
1
At the beginning,
amsmath provided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version of amsmath made the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:46
At the beginning,
amsmath provided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version of amsmath made the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:46
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
The first or third option below may be close to what you're looking for. Or, switch from Newton-style to Leibniz-style notation for the derivative, as shown by the fourth option (newly fixed to incorporated @marmot's comment). A separate comment: to make the frac{1}{2} term less visually dominant, consider using tfrac instead of frac.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath} % for tfrac macro and general accent-placement support
begin{document}
[
tfrac{1}{2}m dot{vec{x}} ^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^{,2} quad
tfrac{1}{2}mbigl(tfrac{mathrm{d}vec{x}}{mathrm{d}t}bigr)^{!2}
]
end{document}
answered Dec 7 at 5:28
Mico
272k30369756
2
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.;-)
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:52
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 10:25
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter$d$that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative?frac{dd}{dt}? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesettingfrac{dd}{dt}.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 13:46
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 14:08
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the typefrac{dd}{dt}. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?
– marmot
Dec 7 at 19:10
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
5
down vote
The first or third option below may be close to what you're looking for. Or, switch from Newton-style to Leibniz-style notation for the derivative, as shown by the fourth option (newly fixed to incorporated @marmot's comment). A separate comment: to make the frac{1}{2} term less visually dominant, consider using tfrac instead of frac.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath} % for tfrac macro and general accent-placement support
begin{document}
[
tfrac{1}{2}m dot{vec{x}} ^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^{,2} quad
tfrac{1}{2}mbigl(tfrac{mathrm{d}vec{x}}{mathrm{d}t}bigr)^{!2}
]
end{document}
answered Dec 7 at 5:28
Mico
272k30369756
2
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.;-)
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:52
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 10:25
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter$d$that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative?frac{dd}{dt}? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesettingfrac{dd}{dt}.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 13:46
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 14:08
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the typefrac{dd}{dt}. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?
– marmot
Dec 7 at 19:10
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
The first or third option below may be close to what you're looking for. Or, switch from Newton-style to Leibniz-style notation for the derivative, as shown by the fourth option (newly fixed to incorporated @marmot's comment). A separate comment: to make the frac{1}{2} term less visually dominant, consider using tfrac instead of frac.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath} % for tfrac macro and general accent-placement support
begin{document}
[
tfrac{1}{2}m dot{vec{x}} ^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^{,2} quad
tfrac{1}{2}mbigl(tfrac{mathrm{d}vec{x}}{mathrm{d}t}bigr)^{!2}
]
end{document}
answered Dec 7 at 5:28
Mico
272k30369756
The first or third option below may be close to what you're looking for. Or, switch from Newton-style to Leibniz-style notation for the derivative, as shown by the fourth option (newly fixed to incorporated @marmot's comment). A separate comment: to make the frac{1}{2} term less visually dominant, consider using tfrac instead of frac.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath} % for tfrac macro and general accent-placement support
begin{document}
[
tfrac{1}{2}m dot{vec{x}} ^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^{,2} quad
tfrac{1}{2}mbigl(tfrac{mathrm{d}vec{x}}{mathrm{d}t}bigr)^{!2}
]
end{document}
answered Dec 7 at 5:28
Mico
272k30369756
edited Dec 7 at 5:49
answered Dec 7 at 5:28
Mico
272k30369756
answered Dec 7 at 5:28
Mico
272k30369756
answered Dec 7 at 5:28
Mico
272k30369756
272k30369756
2
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.;-)
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:52
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 10:25
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter$d$that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative?frac{dd}{dt}? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesettingfrac{dd}{dt}.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 13:46
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 14:08
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the typefrac{dd}{dt}. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?
– marmot
Dec 7 at 19:10
|
show 1 more comment
2
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.;-)
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:52
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 10:25
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter$d$that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative?frac{dd}{dt}? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesettingfrac{dd}{dt}.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 13:46
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 14:08
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the typefrac{dd}{dt}. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?
– marmot
Dec 7 at 19:10
2
2
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.
;-)– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:52
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.
;-)– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:52
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 10:25
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 10:25
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter
$d$ that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative? frac{dd}{dt}? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesetting frac{dd}{dt}.– marmot
Dec 7 at 13:46
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter
$d$ that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative? frac{dd}{dt}? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesetting frac{dd}{dt}.– marmot
Dec 7 at 13:46
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 14:08
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
Dec 7 at 14:08
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the type
frac{dd}{dt}. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?– marmot
Dec 7 at 19:10
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the type
frac{dd}{dt}. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?– marmot
Dec 7 at 19:10
|
show 1 more comment
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%2f463627%2fcommand-for-vector-dot-with-some-power%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
Welcome to TeX.SE! Can you please, as usual here -- show us a short compilable code and an screenshot of your result?
– Kurt
Dec 7 at 5:04
1
One reason more for not using the arrow for vectors.
– egreg
Dec 7 at 8:46