Kdtyjb

What is this sharp, curved notch on my knife for?

Accepted by European university, rejected by all American ones I applied to? Possible reasons?

Why can't devices on different VLANs, but on the same subnet, communicate?

Keeping a retro style to sci-fi spaceships?

Is it ok to offer lower paid work as a trial period before negotiating for a full-time job?

If I can cast sorceries at instant speed, can I use sorcery-speed activated abilities at instant speed?

How to type a long/em dash `—`

Did any laptop computers have a built-in 5 1/4 inch floppy drive?

Old scifi movie from the 50s or 60s with men in solid red uniforms who interrogate a spy from the past

Can there be female White Walkers?

Why was M87 targeted for the Event Horizon Telescope instead of Sagittarius A*?

Why isn't the black hole white?

"as much details as you can remember"

Worn-tile Scrabble

How to obtain a position of last non-zero element

Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?

Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?

Why doesn't UInt have a toDouble()?

Does HR tell a hiring manager about salary negotiations?

Is an up-to-date browser secure on an out-of-date OS?

Star Trek - X-shaped Item on Regula/Orbital Office Starbases

Will it cause any balance problems to have PCs level up and gain the benefits of a long rest mid-fight?

What is the most efficient way to store a numeric range?

Did Scotland spend $250,000 for the slogan "Welcome to Scotland"?

Alternative to using inline math mode for single letters?

0

In work that I write, I frequently have a big mathematical block that uses a lot of single-letter symbols. This is fine, and in fact the standard for the specific sub-field in question. My issue (it's not really an issue, but something that bugs me) is that in the normal text sections of the work I frequently mention some of these symbols. These are written so that they match the presentation of them in the mathematical block, which in practice means that I end up wrapping every mention of the symbol in an inline maths block. E.g. from something I'm currently writing:

At step (k > 1), ... (b) objects are removed, ... replaced with new (b) objects ... adding one further (m) object to (M).

In the instance above, the k > 1 should be inside an inline maths section in order to typeset it correctly, but it always feels a bit wrong to me to wrap all the single symbol references like (b) and (M) in an inline maths block, as that doesn't really seem like what maths mode is for.

Is there a recommend alternative way to get the same typesetting, without actually switching into math mode? I'm aware of the textit command, but I'm not sure if that will always produce the same results as using maths mode - I imagine there might be some document class out there that will end making the two have different typesetting. Or should I simply use maths mode and not worry about it?

I couldn't find any guidance when I searched on this topic, though I may just not have searched on the correct terms. I'm currently using pdfLatex, so I assume that's Latex2e (I'm actually using the default in Overleaf), but I'm hoping that there's a fairly general answer to this.

math-mode formatting

share|improve this question

asked 14 mins ago

JarakJarak

1183

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  there is no better alternative for math node. however, you can define new commands for set of variables and frequently used math expressions.
  
  – Zarko
  11 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Zarko Would you be willing to write up what you mean as an answer, please? Or if there's already such an answer, could you please link to it?
  
  – Jarak
  40 secs ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

0

In work that I write, I frequently have a big mathematical block that uses a lot of single-letter symbols. This is fine, and in fact the standard for the specific sub-field in question. My issue (it's not really an issue, but something that bugs me) is that in the normal text sections of the work I frequently mention some of these symbols. These are written so that they match the presentation of them in the mathematical block, which in practice means that I end up wrapping every mention of the symbol in an inline maths block. E.g. from something I'm currently writing:

At step (k > 1), ... (b) objects are removed, ... replaced with new (b) objects ... adding one further (m) object to (M).

In the instance above, the k > 1 should be inside an inline maths section in order to typeset it correctly, but it always feels a bit wrong to me to wrap all the single symbol references like (b) and (M) in an inline maths block, as that doesn't really seem like what maths mode is for.

Is there a recommend alternative way to get the same typesetting, without actually switching into math mode? I'm aware of the textit command, but I'm not sure if that will always produce the same results as using maths mode - I imagine there might be some document class out there that will end making the two have different typesetting. Or should I simply use maths mode and not worry about it?

I couldn't find any guidance when I searched on this topic, though I may just not have searched on the correct terms. I'm currently using pdfLatex, so I assume that's Latex2e (I'm actually using the default in Overleaf), but I'm hoping that there's a fairly general answer to this.

math-mode formatting

share|improve this question

asked 14 mins ago

JarakJarak

1183

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  there is no better alternative for math node. however, you can define new commands for set of variables and frequently used math expressions.
  
  – Zarko
  11 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Zarko Would you be willing to write up what you mean as an answer, please? Or if there's already such an answer, could you please link to it?
  
  – Jarak
  40 secs ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

In work that I write, I frequently have a big mathematical block that uses a lot of single-letter symbols. This is fine, and in fact the standard for the specific sub-field in question. My issue (it's not really an issue, but something that bugs me) is that in the normal text sections of the work I frequently mention some of these symbols. These are written so that they match the presentation of them in the mathematical block, which in practice means that I end up wrapping every mention of the symbol in an inline maths block. E.g. from something I'm currently writing:

At step (k > 1), ... (b) objects are removed, ... replaced with new (b) objects ... adding one further (m) object to (M).

In the instance above, the k > 1 should be inside an inline maths section in order to typeset it correctly, but it always feels a bit wrong to me to wrap all the single symbol references like (b) and (M) in an inline maths block, as that doesn't really seem like what maths mode is for.

Is there a recommend alternative way to get the same typesetting, without actually switching into math mode? I'm aware of the textit command, but I'm not sure if that will always produce the same results as using maths mode - I imagine there might be some document class out there that will end making the two have different typesetting. Or should I simply use maths mode and not worry about it?

I couldn't find any guidance when I searched on this topic, though I may just not have searched on the correct terms. I'm currently using pdfLatex, so I assume that's Latex2e (I'm actually using the default in Overleaf), but I'm hoping that there's a fairly general answer to this.

math-mode formatting

share|improve this question

asked 14 mins ago

JarakJarak

1183

At step (k > 1), ... (b) objects are removed, ... replaced with new (b) objects ... adding one further (m) object to (M).

share|improve this question

asked 14 mins ago

JarakJarak

1183

share|improve this question

asked 14 mins ago

JarakJarak

1183

asked 14 mins ago

JarakJarak

1183

asked 14 mins ago

JarakJarak

1183