LaTeX Spoken Here! at Asymptotia

LaTeX Spoken Here!

Published

on December 12, 2006

This is a test of LaTeX on the site*.

The first equation I shall try is the following (for more on unpacking this equation and its meaning, see this post and links therein):

$u{\cal R}^2-\frac12 {\cal R}{\cal R}^{\prime\prime}+\frac14({\cal R}^\prime)^2=\Gamma^2\ .$

Yay! It works. I have implemented it in the comments too. So now we can have a new, sharper tool for our discussions and arguments.

Use: Type simple LaTeX commands enclosed between [ tex ] and [ / tex] (remove the spaces between the things in the square brackets) and it should work once you submit.

Enjoy.

-cvj

(*I got around the problems of not being able to have LaTeX running on my host. Hurrah! The compromise I used means that the LaTeX is not as nicely formed as it could be, but it’s good enough! Learn more about latexrender and mimetex here.)

151 Responses to “LaTeX Spoken Here!”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 2:40 pm

Test:

$\frac{1}{2}v^{\prime\prime}-v^3+zv+\frac12\pm\Gamma=0\ .$

-cvj
2 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 2:41 pm

Hurrah!

-cvj
3 Melquiades
December 12, 2006 at 4:02 pm

Test:

$E = mc^2$

Hopefully it will work… This is great Clifford!
4 Carl Brannen
December 12, 2006 at 4:02 pm

The preview doesn’t work, which means this is going to require some faith or care…

$\rho^2 = \rho$ is the idempotency relation that defines particles in a density operator formalism. Example (chiral) solution:

$\rho = 0.25(1+\gamma_0\gamma_3)(1 - i\gamma_1\gamma_2)$

Okay, apply prayer, and hit submit…
5 Melquiades
December 12, 2006 at 4:02 pm

Awesome!
6 Carl Brannen
December 12, 2006 at 4:03 pm

Wow, it’s even more of a trip when you can’t know with certainty that your tex is going to work in advance.
7 Bee
December 12, 2006 at 4:51 pm

R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} \mathcal{R} = 8 \pi G T_{\mu\nu}
8 Bee
December 12, 2006 at 4:52 pm

[tex]R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} \mathcal{R} = 8 \pi G T_{\mu\nu} [\tex]
9 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 4:53 pm

Bee…. put it between the things I mentioned in the post.

-cvj
10 Bee
December 12, 2006 at 4:53 pm

Okay. I can do it!

$R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} \mathcal{R} = 8 \pi G T_{\mu\nu}$
11 Bee
December 12, 2006 at 4:53 pm
12 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 4:54 pm

Hurrah!

-cvj
13 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 4:55 pm

This is way more fun than it really should be, isn’t it?

-cvj
14 Bee
December 12, 2006 at 4:58 pm

This is indeed cool. Can it make integrals?

$S = \int d^4 x {\mathcal L}$
15 Bee
December 12, 2006 at 5:01 pm

Wow! I’m impressed. I’ve regretted more than once that my blog is running on a public server. All that template stuff really sucks, it just never looks like I want it to. Btw, you probably know that your-css sheet is kind of messed up with MS internet explorer? It’s kind of a funny effect that I haven’t seen anywhere else. If the site gets too long, say more than 80 comments, the text keeps running out of the window, because it’s not totally horizontal.

If I’d consider moving my blog elsewhere, what would you advise me to consider?

B.
16 Bee
December 12, 2006 at 5:03 pm

Gee! I meant to say: because it’s not totally vertical. Long day, I think I need to get some dinner. Have a nice evening. Best,

B.
17 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 5:14 pm

Bee, I’ll email you about blogging options. For ease of use, you can use Wordpress on any number of public hosting services, or on your own computer for full control of everything (I do that for my private reserch blog for example, where I’ve had latex prettily running for over a year now). Others will disagree. Jacques can quote you volume, chapter, and verse about why it would be better to use the sort of things he uses on golem…. for the best mathematics rendering. I’m happy with this less powerful solution….

About IE. I don’t support it. I’ve heard that the most recent versions are better built and render the site more accurately.

Best,

-cvj
18 Plato
December 12, 2006 at 5:17 pm

Bee,

Cliffords site works okay with Firefox.

Cosmic Variance is now encoutering some of the problems as well.
19 Aaron F.
December 12, 2006 at 5:19 pm

Oooh, so much fun!

$\forall n \in \mathbb{Z}, n \geq 2, \exists F = \{ p \mid p \in \mathbb{P} \} \tex{s.t.} n = \prod_{p \in F} p$

Fingers crossed…
20 Aaron F.
December 12, 2006 at 5:27 pm

Wow… I can’t believe that worked the first time! A preview option is DEFINITELY a must, especially for schlemiels like me. The spacing is a bit wacky, but everything is legible, and I’m impressed with the handling of \mathbb{…} — I usually have to include \amsmath or something before it’ll work.
21 Mogadalai P Gururajan
December 12, 2006 at 5:52 pm

$\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} = \nabla M \nabla \mu$

Keeping my fingers crossed!
22 Lubos Motl
December 12, 2006 at 5:54 pm

$P^{\alpha}(\sigma)=Z^{\alpha} = \sum_{k=-1}^{d-1} \beta^{\alpha}_{k+1} \sigma^k = \frac{\beta^\alpha_0}\sigma + \beta^\alpha_1 + \beta^{\alpha}_2 \sigma,\qquad f(x) = \int_0^\infty dt \frac{e^{-t}\sqrt{1+t^2}}{t+1}$
23 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 5:54 pm

Ok Lubos, just this once a comment of yours can stay. Just finished assigning grades for my course and so I am oozing with good will.

-cvj
24 Mogadalai P Gururajan
December 12, 2006 at 5:55 pm

Wow! How did you do it?
25 Arun
December 12, 2006 at 6:09 pm

$f_I(x_I) &=& \int_{-1}^\infty f_I(t) dE_I(t) =\int_{-1}^\infty [1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left( \begin{array}{c} q \\ n \end{array} \right) t^n]\; dE_I(t) \nonumber\\ &=& [1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left( \begin{array}{c} q \\ n \end{array} \right) x_I^n]\;$
26 Arun
December 12, 2006 at 6:12 pm

Hmm, the above was equation 2.6 of gr-qc/0607101 simply cut-and-paste here. Not sure what the & are doing in it

$f_I(x_I) = \int_{-1}^\infty f_I(t) dE_I(t) =\int_{-1}^\infty [1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left( \begin{array}{c} q \\ n \end{array} \right) t^n]\; dE_I(t) \nonumber\\ = [1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left( \begin{array}{c} q \\ n \end{array} \right) x_I^n]\;$
27 Arun
December 12, 2006 at 6:18 pm

$\{\vec{C}(\vec{N}),\vec{C}(\vec{N}’)\}$
28 Arun
December 12, 2006 at 6:19 pm

Please publish the recipe for how to do this.
Thanks in advance!
29 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 6:27 pm

latexrender is a well known plugin. But if you don’t have latex on the server, you can sometimes get away by wrapping something similar to latexrender around mimetex.

See this whole blog devoted to this. You have to tailor things a bit to get it to work, but it works.

-cvj
30 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 6:37 pm

$\Large\overbrace{a,\ldots,a}^{\text{k a^,s}}, \underbrace{b,\ldots,b}_{\text{l b^,s}}\hspace{10} \large\underbrace{\overbrace{a\ldots a}^{\text{k a^,s}}, \overbrace{b\ldots b}^{\text{l b^,s}}}_{\text{k+l elements}}$

-cvj
31 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 6:41 pm

$\normalsize \left(\large\begin{array}{GC+23} \varepsilon_x\\\varepsilon_y\\\varepsilon_z\\\gamma_{xy}\\ \gamma_{xz}\\\gamma_{yz}\end{array}\right)\ {\Large=} \ \left[\begin{array}{CC} \begin{array}\frac1{E_{\fs{+1}x}} & -\frac{\nu_{xy}}{E_{\fs{+1}x}} &-\frac{\nu_{\fs{+1}xz}}{E_{\fs{+1}x}}\\ -\frac{\nu_{yx}}{E_y}&\frac1{E_{y}}&-\frac{\nu_{yz}}{E_y}\\ -\frac{\nu_{\fs{+1}zx}}{E_{\fs{+1}z}}& -\frac{\nu_{zy}}{E_{\fs{+1}z}} &\frac1{E_{\fs{+1}z}}\end{array} & {\LARGE 0} \\ {\LARGE 0} & \begin{array}\frac1{G_{xy}}&&\\ &\frac1{G_{\fs{+1}xz}}&\\&&\frac1{G_{yz}}\end{array} \end{array}\right] \ \left(\large\begin{array} \sigma_x\\\sigma_y\\\sigma_z\\\tau_{xy}\\\tau_{xz}\\\tau_{yz} \end{array}\right)$

-cvj
32 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 6:44 pm

$\Large\hspace{5}\unitlength{1} \picture(175,100){~(50,50){\circle(100)} (1,50){\overbrace{\line(46)}^{4$\;\;a}} (52,50){\line(125)}~(50,52;115;2){\mid}~(52,55){\longleftar[60]} (130,56){\longrightar[35]}~(116,58){r}~(c85,50;80;2){\bullet} (c85,36){3$-q}~(c165,36){3$q} (42,29){\underbrace{\line(32)}_{1$a^2/r\;\;\;}}~}$

-cvj
33 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 6:48 pm

Yes…. I got carried away and tried to see how these look. I borrowed these examples from the mimetex site.

(Had to use the html ampersand character code for the ampersand column delimiter in the array function, ironically.)

Too much fun.

-cvj
34 damtp_dweller
December 12, 2006 at 7:21 pm

Can you use the [ itex ] tag to put tex inline? Like [itex]\overline{R}=\phi^{-4}(R-8\phi^{-1}\Delta\phi)[/itex]? That should be an inline version of the Lichnerowicz equation.

$Y[g] \equiv \stackrel{\mathrm{inf}}{\theta\in\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{M})}\frac{\int d^3x \,\sqrt{g}((\nabla\theta)^2 + \frac{1}{8}R\theta^2)}{\left(\int d^3x \,\sqrt{g}\theta^6\right)^{1/3}}.$
35 damtp_dweller
December 12, 2006 at 7:22 pm

Apparently not.
36 Aaron F.
December 12, 2006 at 8:07 pm

damtp_dweller — If you want inline equations, you should just be able to stick whatever the [tex]\int \, f(u) \; dk[\tex] you want right into the flow of text. Let’s find out…
37 Aaron F.
December 12, 2006 at 8:08 pm

Damn! I misbackslashed! As I was saying, if you want inline equations, you should just be able to stick whatever the $\int \, f(u) \; dk$ you want right into the flow of text. Fingers crossed…
38 Aaron F.
December 12, 2006 at 8:13 pm

Not perfect, but it doesn’t break the flow of text too much!. Also, it looks like spacing works much better in the integrals than it did with the set stuff. Let’s try that again without the \, after the integral, and with a normal \, instead of a \; before the dk…

As you can see, we may replace the blah blah with fufufufu in equation whatnot, allowing us to generate several lines of dummy text merely to ascertain the effects of $\int f(u) \, dk$ on vertical spacing, as well as to experiment with internal spacing parameters on $\LaTeX$ output.
39 Hmm
December 12, 2006 at 8:28 pm

${\cal M}(s,t,u) = -g_s^2 K \frac{\Gamma[-s] \Gamma[-t] \Gamma[-u]}{\Gamma[1 + s] \Gamma[1 + t] \Gamma[1 + u]}$
40 Hmm
December 12, 2006 at 8:35 pm

Awesome. Or rather,
$\int d^4 \theta \Sum_j \phi_j^\dagger e^{2 V \cdot T_j} \phi_j + \int d^2 \theta \tau {\cal W}_\alpha {\cal W}^\alpha + \int d^2 \theta W(\phi) + \rm{h.c.}$
awesome!
41 Lubos Motl
December 12, 2006 at 9:01 pm

“Just finished assigning grades for my course and so I am oozing with good will.”

This is what I would call the ultimate $\mathcal{FREEDOM}$ of expression - I would if I had two chances.
42 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 9:07 pm

Ok, but that’s it. I’m not having you start abusing people, etc.

-cvj
43 Jacques Distler
December 12, 2006 at 9:21 pm

It will be interesting to see whether people find this usable.

I’m pretty bad at composing error-free TeX without benefit of a preview.
44 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 9:30 pm

Well we shall see. If people find it useful for even simple formulae in making their point, it will have been useful. People also might use it to drop in an equation from another source, such as a paper under discussion, etc., which can then be more easily pointed to. I will also be able to use it for longer posts.

-cvj
45 Carl Brannen
December 12, 2006 at 10:27 pm

Pictures! No way!

\setlength{\unitlength}{1.0pt}
\begin{picture}(235,170)
\thinlines
\put(35,30){\vector(1,0){113}}
\put( 40,27){\line(0,1){6}}
\put( 90,27){\line(0,1){6}}
\put(140,27){\line(0,1){6}}
\put( 25,15){$-0.5$}
\put( 85,15){$0.0$}
\put(135,15){$0.5$}
\put(120,8){$t_3$}
\put(30,35){\vector(0,1){133}}
\put(27, 40){\line(1,0){6}}
\put(27, 70){\line(1,0){6}}
\put(27,100){\line(1,0){6}}
\put(27,130){\line(1,0){6}}
\put(27,160){\line(1,0){6}}
\put(10, 40){-1.0}
\put(10, 70){-0.5}
\put(10,100){ 0.0}
\put(10,130){ 0.5}
\put(10,160){ 1.0}
\put( 5,150){$t_0$}
\thinlines
\put( 40,130){\line(0,-1){60}}
\put( 90,100){\line(0,-1){60}}
\put(140,130){\line(0,-1){60}}
\put( 40, 70){\line(5,-3){50}}
\put( 40,130){\line(5,-3){50}}
\put( 90,160){\line(5,-3){50}}
\put( 90, 40){\line(5, 3){50}}
\put( 90,100){\line(5, 3){50}}
\put( 40,130){\line(5, 3){50}}
\put(205,100){\vector(0,-1){30}} \put(195, 70){$n$}
\put(205,100){\vector(3, 2){25}} \put(235,115){$l$}
\put(205,100){\vector(-3,2){25}} \put(170,116){$m$}
\put( 40, 70){\circle*{3}}
\put( 40, 90){\circle*{3}}
\put( 40,110){\circle*{3}}
\put( 40,130){\circle*{3}}
\put( 90, 40){\circle*{3}}
\put( 90, 60){\circle*{3}}
\put( 90, 80){\circle*{3}}
\put( 90,100){\circle*{3}}
\put( 90,120){\circle{3}}
\put( 90,140){\circle{3}}
\put( 90,160){\circle*{3}}
\put(140, 70){\circle*{3}}
\put(140, 90){\circle*{3}}
\put(140,110){\circle*{3}}
\put(140,130){\circle*{3}}
\put( 45, 70){$e_L $}
\put( 45, 90){$\bar{u}_{*R}$}
\put( 45,110){$d_{*L} $}
\put( 50,128){$\bar{\nu}_R $}
\put( 95, 38){$e_R $}
\put( 95, 55){$\bar{u}_{*L}$}
\put( 95, 75){$d_{*R} $}
\put( 95, 95){$\bar{\nu}_L $}
\put( 95,115){$\bar{d}_{*L}$}
\put( 95,135){$u_{*R} $}
\put( 98,159){$\bar{e}_L $}
\put(145, 70){$\nu_L $}
\put(145, 90){$\bar{d}_{*R}$}
\put(145,110){$u_{*L} $}
\put(145,130){$\bar{e}_R $}
\end{picture}

(weak hypercharge and weak isospin for 1st generation)
46 Carl Brannen
December 12, 2006 at 10:28 pm

Ouch. Delete that.

$\setlength{\unitlength}{1.0pt} \begin{picture}(235,170) \thinlines \put(35,30){\vector(1,0){113}} \put( 40,27){\line(0,1){6}} \put( 90,27){\line(0,1){6}} \put(140,27){\line(0,1){6}} \put( 25,15){$-0.5$} \put( 85,15){$0.0$} \put(135,15){$0.5$} \put(120,8){$t_3$} \put(30,35){\vector(0,1){133}} \put(27, 40){\line(1,0){6}} \put(27, 70){\line(1,0){6}} \put(27,100){\line(1,0){6}} \put(27,130){\line(1,0){6}} \put(27,160){\line(1,0){6}} \put(10, 40){-1.0} \put(10, 70){-0.5} \put(10,100){ 0.0} \put(10,130){ 0.5} \put(10,160){ 1.0} \put( 5,150){$t_0$} \thinlines \put( 40,130){\line(0,-1){60}} \put( 90,100){\line(0,-1){60}} \put(140,130){\line(0,-1){60}} \put( 40, 70){\line(5,-3){50}} \put( 40,130){\line(5,-3){50}} \put( 90,160){\line(5,-3){50}} \put( 90, 40){\line(5, 3){50}} \put( 90,100){\line(5, 3){50}} \put( 40,130){\line(5, 3){50}} \put(205,100){\vector(0,-1){30}} \put(195, 70){$n$} \put(205,100){\vector(3, 2){25}} \put(235,115){$l$} \put(205,100){\vector(-3,2){25}} \put(170,116){$m$} \put( 40, 70){\circle*{3}} \put( 40, 90){\circle*{3}} \put( 40,110){\circle*{3}} \put( 40,130){\circle*{3}} \put( 90, 40){\circle*{3}} \put( 90, 60){\circle*{3}} \put( 90, 80){\circle*{3}} \put( 90,100){\circle*{3}} \put( 90,120){\circle{3}} \put( 90,140){\circle{3}} \put( 90,160){\circle*{3}} \put(140, 70){\circle*{3}} \put(140, 90){\circle*{3}} \put(140,110){\circle*{3}} \put(140,130){\circle*{3}} \put( 45, 70){$e_L $} \put( 45, 90){$\bar{u}_{*R}$} \put( 45,110){$d_{*L} $} \put( 50,128){$\bar{\nu}_R $} \put( 95, 38){$e_R $} \put( 95, 55){$\bar{u}_{*L}$} \put( 95, 75){$d_{*R} $} \put( 95, 95){$\bar{\nu}_L $} \put( 95,115){$\bar{d}_{*L}$} \put( 95,135){$u_{*R} $} \put( 98,159){$\bar{e}_L $} \put(145, 70){$\nu_L $} \put(145, 90){$\bar{d}_{*R}$} \put(145,110){$u_{*L} $} \put(145,130){$\bar{e}_R $} \end{picture}$

(weak hypercharge and weak isospin for 1st generation)
47 Aaron Bergman
December 12, 2006 at 10:31 pm

Hmmmm. I wonder what plugins are available:

$\xymatrix{ {} (0,1)} \ar@2{->}[]-/u 4mm/*{\bullet};[dr]-/r 8mm/*{\bullet}^{b_j} \\ {\mathcal{O}} \ar@2{->}[]-/l 4mm/*{\bullet};[ur]-/u 4mm/^{a_i} (1,1)} \ar@2{->}[]-/r 8mm/*{\bullet}; [dl]-/d 4mm/*{\bullet}^{c_k} \\ {} (1,2)} \ar@2{->}[]-/d 4mm/;[ul]-/l 4mm/^{d_l} }}$
48 Carl Brannen
December 12, 2006 at 10:31 pm

Hmmm.

$\Large\hspace\unitlength{1} \begin{picture}(235,170) \thinlines \put(35,30){\vector(1,0){113}} \put( 40,27){\line(0,1){6}} \put( 90,27){\line(0,1){6}} \put(140,27){\line(0,1){6}} \put( 25,15){$-0.5$} \put( 85,15){$0.0$} \put(135,15){$0.5$} \put(120,8){$t_3$} \put(30,35){\vector(0,1){133}} \put(27, 40){\line(1,0){6}} \put(27, 70){\line(1,0){6}} \put(27,100){\line(1,0){6}} \put(27,130){\line(1,0){6}} \put(27,160){\line(1,0){6}} \put(10, 40){-1.0} \put(10, 70){-0.5} \put(10,100){ 0.0} \put(10,130){ 0.5} \put(10,160){ 1.0} \put( 5,150){$t_0$} \thinlines \put( 40,130){\line(0,-1){60}} \put( 90,100){\line(0,-1){60}} \put(140,130){\line(0,-1){60}} \put( 40, 70){\line(5,-3){50}} \put( 40,130){\line(5,-3){50}} \put( 90,160){\line(5,-3){50}} \put( 90, 40){\line(5, 3){50}} \put( 90,100){\line(5, 3){50}} \put( 40,130){\line(5, 3){50}} \put(205,100){\vector(0,-1){30}} \put(195, 70){$n$} \put(205,100){\vector(3, 2){25}} \put(235,115){$l$} \put(205,100){\vector(-3,2){25}} \put(170,116){$m$} \put( 40, 70){\circle*{3}} \put( 40, 90){\circle*{3}} \put( 40,110){\circle*{3}} \put( 40,130){\circle*{3}} \put( 90, 40){\circle*{3}} \put( 90, 60){\circle*{3}} \put( 90, 80){\circle*{3}} \put( 90,100){\circle*{3}} \put( 90,120){\circle{3}} \put( 90,140){\circle{3}} \put( 90,160){\circle*{3}} \put(140, 70){\circle*{3}} \put(140, 90){\circle*{3}} \put(140,110){\circle*{3}} \put(140,130){\circle*{3}} \put( 45, 70){$e_L $} \put( 45, 90){$\bar{u}_{*R}$} \put( 45,110){$d_{*L} $} \put( 50,128){$\bar{\nu}_R $} \put( 95, 38){$e_R $} \put( 95, 55){$\bar{u}_{*L}$} \put( 95, 75){$d_{*R} $} \put( 95, 95){$\bar{\nu}_L $} \put( 95,115){$\bar{d}_{*L}$} \put( 95,135){$u_{*R} $} \put( 98,159){$\bar{e}_L $} \put(145, 70){$\nu_L $} \put(145, 90){$\bar{d}_{*R}$} \put(145,110){$u_{*L} $} \put(145,130){$\bar{e}_R $} \end{picture}$
49 Aaron Bergman
December 12, 2006 at 10:32 pm

Does usepackage work?

$\usepackage{xypic} \xymatrix{ {} (0,1)} \ar@2{->}[]-/u 4mm/*{\bullet};[dr]-/r 8mm/*{\bullet}^{b_j} \\ {\mathcal{O}} \ar@2{->}[]-/l 4mm/*{\bullet};[ur]-/u 4mm/^{a_i} (1,1)} \ar@2{->}[]-/r 8mm/*{\bullet}; [dl]-/d 4mm/*{\bullet}^{c_k} \\ {} (1,2)} \ar@2{->}[]-/d 4mm/;[ul]-/l 4mm/^{d_l} }}$

(If this doesn’t work, that’s it for me)
50 Carl Brannen
December 12, 2006 at 10:36 pm

Test scaling:

$\Large\hspace\unitlength{1} \begin{picture}(470,340) \thinlines \put(70,60){\vector(1,0){113}} \put( 80,54){\line(0,1){6}} \put(180,54){\line(0,1){6}} \put(280,54){\line(0,1){6}} \put(100,30){$-0.5$} \put(170,30){$0.0$} \put(270,30){$0.5$} \put(240,16){$t_3$} \put(60,70){\vector(0,1){133}} \put(54, 80){\line(1,0){6}} \put(54,140){\line(1,0){6}} \put(54,200){\line(1,0){6}} \put(54,260){\line(1,0){6}} \put(54,320){\line(1,0){6}} \put(20, 80){-1.0} \put(20,140){-0.5} \put(20,200){ 0.0} \put(20,260){ 0.5} \put(20,320){ 1.0} \put(10,300){$t_0$} \thinlines \put( 80,260){\line(0,-1){60}} \put(180,200){\line(0,-1){60}} \put(280,260){\line(0,-1){60}} \put( 80,140){\line(5,-3){50}} \put( 80,260){\line(5,-3){50}} \put(180,320){\line(5,-3){50}} \put(180, 80){\line(5, 3){50}} \put(180,200){\line(5, 3){50}} \put( 80,260){\line(5, 3){50}} \end{picture}$
51 Carl Brannen
December 12, 2006 at 10:43 pm

I wonder how many tests I can screw up before I get banned?

$\Large\hspace\unitlength{1} \begin{picture}(470,340) \thinlines \put(70,60){\line(1,0){226}} \put( 80,54){\line(0,1){12}} \put(180,54){\line(0,1){12}} \put(280,54){\line(0,1){12}} \put(100,30){$-0.5$} \put(170,30){$0.0$} \put(270,30){$0.5$} \put(240,16){$t_3$} \put(60,70){\line(0,1){266}} \put(54, 80){\line(1,0){12}} \put(54,140){\line(1,0){12}} \put(54,200){\line(1,0){12}} \put(54,260){\line(1,0){12}} \put(54,320){\line(1,0){12}} \put(20, 80){-1.0} \put(20,140){-0.5} \put(20,200){ 0.0} \put(20,260){ 0.5} \put(20,320){ 1.0} \put(10,300){$t_0$} \thinlines \put( 80,140){\line(0,1){120}} \put(180, 80){\line(0,1){120}} \put(280,140){\line(0,1){120}} \put( 80,140){\line(5,-3){100}} \put( 80,260){\line(5,-3){100}} \put(180,320){\line(5,-3){100}} \put(180, 80){\line(5, 3){100}} \put(180,200){\line(5, 3){100}} \put( 80,260){\line(5, 3){100}} \put(410,200){\vector(0,-1){30}} \put(390,140){$n$} \put(410,200){\vector(3, 2){25}} \put(470,230){$l$} \put(410,200){\vector(-3,2){25}} \put(340,232){$m$} \put( 80,140){\circle*{3}} \put( 80,180){\circle*{3}} \put( 80,220){\circle*{3}} \put( 80,260){\circle*{3}} \put(180, 80){\circle*{3}} \put(180,120){\circle*{3}} \put(180,160){\circle*{3}} \put(180,200){\circle*{3}} \put(180,240){\circle{3}} \put(180,280){\circle{3}} \put(180,320){\circle*{3}} \put(280,140){\circle*{3}} \put(280,180){\circle*{3}} \put(280,220){\circle*{3}} \put(280,260){\circle*{3}} \put( 90,140){$e_L $} \put( 90,180){$\bar{u}_{*R}$} \put( 90,220){$d_{*L} $} \put( 50,128){$\bar{\nu}_R $} \put(190, 76){$e_R $} \put(190,110){$\bar{u}_{*L}$} \put(190,150){$d_{*R} $} \put(190,190){$\bar{\nu}_L $} \put(190,230){$\bar{d}_{*L}$} \put(190,270){$u_{*R} $} \put(196,318){$\bar{e}_L $} \put(290,140){$\nu_L $} \put(290,180){$\bar{d}_{*R}$} \put(290,220){$u_{*L} $} \put(290,260){$\bar{e}_R $} \end{picture}$
52 Kishan Yerubandi
December 12, 2006 at 10:46 pm

Clifford, you mentioned your private research blog. Maybe I live in a cave or something, but I’ve never heard of that idea; it sounds like a great one though. Can I ask you to post or comment on how it works? (How it’s structured, pro’s and con’s, etc.)
53 jay
December 12, 2006 at 10:48 pm

just a test
$\int\ \Gamma(x) dx$
54 Carl Brannen
December 12, 2006 at 10:48 pm

$\Large\hspace\unitlength{1} \begin{picture}(470,340) \put(70,60){\line(1,0){226}} \put( 80,54){\line(0,1){12}} \put(180,54){\line(0,1){12}} \put(280,54){\line(0,1){12}} \put(100,30){$-0.5$} \put(170,30){$0.0$} \put(270,30){$0.5$} \put(240,16){$t_3$} \put(60,70){\line(0,1){266}} \put(54, 80){\line(1,0){12}} \put(54,140){\line(1,0){12}} \put(54,200){\line(1,0){12}} \put(54,260){\line(1,0){12}} \put(54,320){\line(1,0){12}} \put(20, 80){-1.0} \put(20,140){-0.5} \put(20,200){ 0.0} \put(20,260){ 0.5} \put(20,320){ 1.0} \put(10,300){$t_0$} \put( 80,140){\line(0,1){120}} \put(180, 80){\line(0,1){120}} \put(280,140){\line(0,1){120}} \put( 80,140){\line(5,-3){100}} \put( 80,260){\line(5,-3){100}} \put(180,320){\line(5,-3){100}} \put(180, 80){\line(5, 3){100}} \put(180,200){\line(5, 3){100}} \put( 80,260){\line(5, 3){100}} \put( 80,140){\circle*{15}} \put( 80,180){\circle*{15}} \put( 80,220){\circle*{15}} \put( 80,260){\circle*{15}} \put(180, 80){\circle*{15}} \put(180,120){\circle*{15}} \put(180,160){\circle*{15}} \put(180,200){\circle*{15}} \put(180,240){\circle{15}} \put(180,280){\circle{15}} \put(180,320){\circle*{15}} \put(280,140){\circle*{15}} \put(280,180){\circle*{15}} \put(280,220){\circle*{15}} \put(280,260){\circle*{15}} \put( 90,140){$e_L $} \put( 90,180){$\bar{u}_{*R}$} \put( 90,220){$d_{*L} $} \put( 50,128){$\bar{\nu}_R $} \put(190, 76){$e_R $} \put(190,110){$\bar{u}_{*L}$} \put(190,150){$d_{*R} $} \put(190,190){$\bar{\nu}_L $} \put(190,230){$\bar{d}_{*L}$} \put(190,270){$u_{*R} $} \put(196,318){$\bar{e}_L $} \put(290,140){$\nu_L $} \put(290,180){$\bar{d}_{*R}$} \put(290,220){$u_{*L} $} \put(290,260){$\bar{e}_R $} \end{picture}$
55 Carl Brannen
December 12, 2006 at 10:55 pm

Okay. I couldn’t get \circle or \vector to work. Scaling was awful. And vertical lines (i.e. “\put( 80,140){\line(0,1){120}}” didn’t work either. How about qbezier?

$\Large\hspace\unitlength{1} \begin{picture}(470,340) \put(70,60){\line(1,0){226}} \put(100,30){$-0.5$} \put(170,30){$0.0$} \put(270,30){$0.5$} \put(240,16){$t_3$} \put(60,70){\line(0,1){266}} \put(54, 80){\line(1,0){12}} \put(54,140){\line(1,0){12}} \put(54,200){\line(1,0){12}} \put(54,260){\line(1,0){12}} \put(54,320){\line(1,0){12}} \put(20, 80){-1.0} \put(20,140){-0.5} \put(20,200){ 0.0} \put(20,260){ 0.5} \put(20,320){ 1.0} \put(10,300){$t_0$} \qbezier(80,140)(80,140)(80,260) \qbezier(120,80)(120,80)(120,200) \qbezier(280,140)(280,140)(280,260) \put( 80,140){\line(5,-3){100}} \put( 80,260){\line(5,-3){100}} \put(180,320){\line(5,-3){100}} \put(180, 80){\line(5, 3){100}} \put(180,200){\line(5, 3){100}} \put( 80,260){\line(5, 3){100}} \put( 90,140){$e_L $} \put( 90,180){$\bar{u}_{*R}$} \put( 90,220){$d_{*L} $} \put( 50,128){$\bar{\nu}_R $} \put(190, 76){$e_R $} \put(190,110){$\bar{u}_{*L}$} \put(190,150){$d_{*R} $} \put(190,190){$\bar{\nu}_L $} \put(190,230){$\bar{d}_{*L}$} \put(190,270){$u_{*R} $} \put(196,318){$\bar{e}_L $} \put(290,140){$\nu_L $} \put(290,180){$\bar{d}_{*R}$} \put(290,220){$u_{*L} $} \put(290,260){$\bar{e}_R $} \end{picture}$
56 Carl Brannen
December 12, 2006 at 10:56 pm

no qbezier. But awesome speed. I swear that Latex takes longer than this for short programs on my iNTEL laptop.
57 Robert
December 12, 2006 at 11:07 pm

Warmup $\int d^2\sigma\,\partial X\bar\partial X$
58 Robert
December 12, 2006 at 11:08 pm

OK, let’s be a bit nasty: $\input /etc/passwd$
59 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 11:15 pm

Kishan Yerubandi:- Actually, I’ve been meaning to post about that for a while now. Give me a little while longer.

Carl Brannen, Aaron Bergmann: - The experiments are fun aren’t they? I do not know the limitations of mimetex, but I suspect that they are very severe in terms of the LaTeX things you are used to. So I do not expect that it will be able to use any TeX library packages of the sort you were trying to load, Aaron, or do a number of the picture elements that you might need Carl. But basic LaTeX allows one to do a great deal (certainly a great deal more than text in comments and posts), so this could be useful. To do proper LaTeX would require LaTeX to be running on the server, with all the whistles and bells you can get going as usual on a computer with that on. This is not what is going on here. You’d need latexrender proper for that… I’m using mimetex to bypass that since my server does not have LaTeX on it. My hosts probably are not familiar with that at all.

Do have a look over at the sites I linked to for some of the rather clever tools they have developed though, like illustration pacakages and the like. Maybe I will see if I can put some of them on here if they look possible and useful.

-cvj
60 Clifford
December 12, 2006 at 11:26 pm

Carl Brannen: - MimeTeX user manual here. I think everyone wants to see what you final picture was suppposed to be!

-cvj
61 Robert
December 12, 2006 at 11:45 pm

again: $\openout7=foo\write7{bar]\closeout7\openin7=foo\read7 to \bla\closein7\bla$
62 Gina
December 12, 2006 at 11:46 pm

[tex] \frac {\bar {\Xsi}}{\Xsi}[\tex]
63 Supernova
December 12, 2006 at 11:47 pm

Okay, it had to be said: You people are all a bunch of dorks.
64 Gina
December 12, 2006 at 11:48 pm

$\frac {\bar {\Xsi}}{\Xsi}$
65 Gina
December 12, 2006 at 11:51 pm

$\frac {\bar {\Xi}}{\Xi}$
66 Clifford
December 13, 2006 at 12:01 am

Such happy dorks, though!

-cvj
67 Carl Brannen
December 13, 2006 at 12:06 am

It turns out that the mimetex picture drawing elements are in certain ways superior to the native commands in LaTex. Vertical lines not working is a bug that only shows up if you use a less efficient method of defining them (I hope).

Whatever, I’m going to see if I can get them to install this over at Physics Forums, where pictures have always been an issue.

$\begin{picture}(470,340) \put( 70,60){\line(226,0)} \put( 80,54){\line(0,12)} \put(180,54){\line(0,12)} \put(280,54){\line(0,12)} \put( 50,30){$-0.5$} \put(170,30){$0.0$} \put(270,30){$0.5$} \put(240,16){$t_3$} \put(60,70){\vector(0,266)} \put(54, 80){\line(12,0)} \put(54,140){\line(12,0)} \put(54,200){\line(12,0)} \put(54,260){\line(12,0)} \put(54,320){\line(12,0)} \put(20, 80){-1.0} \put(20,140){-0.5} \put(20,200){ 0.0} \put(20,260){ 0.5} \put(20,320){ 1.0} \put(10,300){$t_0$} \put( 80,260){\line(0,-60)} \put(180,200){\line(0,-60)} \put(280,260){\line(0,-60)} \put( 80,140){\line(5,-3){50}} \put( 80,260){\line(5,-3){50}} \put(180,320){\line(5,-3){50}} \put(180, 80){\line(5, 3){50}} \put(180,200){\line(5, 3){50}} \put( 80,260){\line(5, 3){50}} \put( 80,140){\circle(6)} \put( 80,180){\circle(6)} \put( 80,220){\circle(6)} \put( 80,260){\circle(6)} \put(180, 80){\circle(6)} \put(180,120){\circle(6)} \put(180,160){\circle(6)} \put(180,200){\circle(6)} \put(180,240){\circle(6)} \put(180,280){\circle(6)} \put(180,320){\circle(6)} \put(180,140){\circle(6)} \put(180,180){\circle(6)} \put(180,220){\circle(6)} \put(180,260){\circle(6)} \put( 90,140){$e_L $} \put( 90,180){$\bar{u}_{*R}$} \put( 90,220){$d_{*L} $} \put(100,256){$\bar{\nu}_R $} \put(190, 76){$e_R $} \put(190,110){$\bar{u}_{*L}$} \put(190,150){$d_{*R} $} \put(190,190){$\bar{\nu}_L $} \put(190,230){$\bar{d}_{*L}$} \put(190,270){$u_{*R} $} \put(196,318){$\bar{e}_L $} \put(290,140){$\nu_L $} \put(290,180){$\bar{d}_{*R}$} \put(290,220){$u_{*L} $} \put(290,260){$\bar{e}_R $} \end{picture}$

Should be elementary particles of first generation, plotted according to weak hypercharge and weak isospin.

[Apply prayer, hit submit]
68 Carl Brannen
December 13, 2006 at 12:09 am

Easy to fix:

$\begin{picture}(470,340) \put( 70,60){\line(226,0)} \put( 80,54){\line(0,12)} \put(180,54){\line(0,12)} \put(280,54){\line(0,12)} \put( 50,30){$-0.5$} \put(170,30){$0.0$} \put(270,30){$0.5$} \put(240,16){$t_3$} \put(60,70){\line(0,266)} \put(54, 80){\line(12,0)} \put(54,140){\line(12,0)} \put(54,200){\line(12,0)} \put(54,260){\line(12,0)} \put(54,320){\line(12,0)} \put(20, 80){-1.0} \put(20,140){-0.5} \put(20,200){ 0.0} \put(20,260){ 0.5} \put(20,320){ 1.0} \put(10,300){$t_0$} \put( 80,260){\line(0,-120)} \put(180,200){\line(0,-120)} \put(280,260){\line(0,-120)} \put( 80,140){\line(5,-3){100}} \put( 80,260){\line(5,-3){100}} \put(180,320){\line(5,-3){100}} \put(180, 80){\line(5, 3){100}} \put(180,200){\line(5, 3){100}} \put( 80,260){\line(5, 3){100}} \put( 80,140){\circle(6)} \put( 80,180){\circle(6)} \put( 80,220){\circle(6)} \put( 80,260){\circle(6)} \put(180, 80){\circle(6)} \put(180,120){\circle(6)} \put(180,160){\circle(6)} \put(180,200){\circle(6)} \put(180,240){\circle(6)} \put(180,280){\circle(6)} \put(180,320){\circle(6)} \put(180,140){\circle(6)} \put(180,180){\circle(6)} \put(180,220){\circle(6)} \put(180,260){\circle(6)} \put( 90,140){$e_L $} \put( 90,180){$\bar{u}_{*R}$} \put( 90,220){$d_{*L} $} \put(100,256){$\bar{\nu}_R $} \put(190, 76){$e_R $} \put(190,110){$\bar{u}_{*L}$} \put(190,150){$d_{*R} $} \put(190,190){$\bar{\nu}_L $} \put(190,230){$\bar{d}_{*L}$} \put(190,270){$u_{*R} $} \put(196,318){$\bar{e}_L $} \put(290,140){$\nu_L $} \put(290,180){$\bar{d}_{*R}$} \put(290,220){$u_{*L} $} \put(290,260){$\bar{e}_R $} \end{picture}$

1st generation plotted according to weak hypercharge and weak isospin. Suggestive that the antiparticles are defined rather arbitrarily, and that the structure of idempotents of Clifford algebras (hypercubes) be used to model internal symmetries.
69 Carl Brannen
December 13, 2006 at 12:10 am

Oh, that was close:

$\begin{picture}(470,340) \put( 70,60){\line(226,0)} \put( 80,54){\line(0,12)} \put(180,54){\line(0,12)} \put(280,54){\line(0,12)} \put( 50,30){$-0.5$} \put(170,30){$0.0$} \put(270,30){$0.5$} \put(240,16){$t_3$} \put(60,70){\line(0,266)} \put(54, 80){\line(12,0)} \put(54,140){\line(12,0)} \put(54,200){\line(12,0)} \put(54,260){\line(12,0)} \put(54,320){\line(12,0)} \put(20, 80){-1.0} \put(20,140){-0.5} \put(20,200){ 0.0} \put(20,260){ 0.5} \put(20,320){ 1.0} \put(10,300){$t_0$} \put( 80,260){\line(0,-120)} \put(180,200){\line(0,-120)} \put(280,260){\line(0,-120)} \put( 80,140){\line(5,-3){100}} \put( 80,260){\line(5,-3){100}} \put(180,320){\line(5,-3){100}} \put(180, 80){\line(5, 3){100}} \put(180,200){\line(5, 3){100}} \put( 80,260){\line(5, 3){100}} \put( 80,140){\circle(6)} \put( 80,180){\circle(6)} \put( 80,220){\circle(6)} \put( 80,260){\circle(6)} \put(180, 80){\circle(6)} \put(180,120){\circle(6)} \put(180,160){\circle(6)} \put(180,200){\circle(6)} \put(180,240){\circle(6)} \put(180,280){\circle(6)} \put(180,320){\circle(6)} \put(280,140){\circle(6)} \put(280,180){\circle(6)} \put(280,220){\circle(6)} \put(280,260){\circle(6)} \put( 90,140){$e_L $} \put( 90,180){$\bar{u}_{*R}$} \put( 90,220){$d_{*L} $} \put(100,256){$\bar{\nu}_R $} \put(190, 76){$e_R $} \put(190,110){$\bar{u}_{*L}$} \put(190,150){$d_{*R} $} \put(190,190){$\bar{\nu}_L $} \put(190,230){$\bar{d}_{*L}$} \put(190,270){$u_{*R} $} \put(196,318){$\bar{e}_L $} \put(290,140){$\nu_L $} \put(290,180){$\bar{d}_{*R}$} \put(290,220){$u_{*L} $} \put(290,260){$\bar{e}_R $} \end{picture}$
70 Carl Brannen
December 13, 2006 at 12:13 am

The picture drawing is superior to the LaTex standard \xypic in that the line draws are not limited to small integer ratios. To get around that in \xypic, one uses the qbezier, which draws nice curves.

I gotta have this.
71 Clifford
December 13, 2006 at 12:22 am

Excellent! Happy to have provided information about a new and useful tool…!

-cvj
72 Thomas Larsson
December 13, 2006 at 3:04 am

This reminds me of when Peter introduced Latexrender.
73 Warren
December 13, 2006 at 4:36 am

In case you missed it, the LaTeÏ‡ code appears when your mouse hovers over the figure.
74 Warren
December 13, 2006 at 4:41 am

Any way to get the fonts less jaggy?
75 Warren
December 13, 2006 at 4:46 am

Just out of curiosity, let’s see how your 1st equation compares to
uRÂ²-Â½RR”+Â¼(R’)Â²=Î“Â²
76 Warren
December 13, 2006 at 4:54 am

latexrender & textogif seem to produce prettier results.
77 Navneeth
December 13, 2006 at 5:18 am

$\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty} \left(f(x)-\left(mx+b\right)\right) = 0$

Getting excited over a typeset; we are certainly a bunch of geeks!
78 Stephen Uitti
December 13, 2006 at 7:31 am

I see. If you want alot of hits on your web site, give people crack. My site has CGI that creates printable add/subtract and multiply problems. Not as sexy as LaTeX. Perhaps i should look into this to create formatted divides.
79 Anon
December 13, 2006 at 8:24 am

To Carl:

Hurrah! I have been watching your efforts with baited breath. A bit like watching a trapeze artist!
80 Cynthia
December 13, 2006 at 9:14 am

It’s truly a pleasure watching all of you folks having loads of fun performing mathematical esoterica via LaTeX. But, Clifford, please don’t let LaTeX take over Asymptotia, in its entirety! Otherwise, I–like so many mathematical zeros–will become shut out from posting on all now and future comment threads:(…
81 Clifford
December 13, 2006 at 10:10 am

Cynthia:- There are, as I write, 239 posts and 2,609 comments on the blog. Only one post is about LaTeX (or so far even has it) and only 80 comments about it (81 once I hit “Submit”). I think you’re safe (and you are not a mathematical zero, by the way).

LaTeX is here as a tool, not a subject in and of itself.

Besides, you can have fun with it by either watching the antics (see comment number 79), or joining in yourself and learning how to make interesting shapes and symbols appear. Think of it as a special smoking lounge I’ve set up in the house (see the living room analogy on the About page) where people can have fun blowing very exotic smoke rings. You don’t have to go into that lounge if you don’t want to, of course.

-cvj
82 Cynthia
December 13, 2006 at 10:30 am

Clifford, thanks for the invitation to the LaTeX Matrix! When I get up the nerve, I’ll join in.;)
83 Amara
December 13, 2006 at 10:55 am

Given what I see above, this should work:
$I_{moving}={{4\pi a^2n_i\sqrt {\left( {{{kT_i} \over {2\pi m_i}}} \right)}} \over 2}\left\{ \matrix{\left( {M^2+{1 \over 2}-\psi _i} \right)\sqrt {{\pi \over M}}\left[ {\rm erf\left( {M+\sqrt {\psi _i}} \right)+{\rm erf}\left( {M-\sqrt {\psi _i}} \right)} \right]\hfill\cr +\left( {\sqrt {{{\psi _i} \over M}}+1} \right)\exp \left[ {-\left( {M-\sqrt {\psi _i}} \right)^2} \right]\hfill\cr -\left( {\sqrt {{{\psi _i} \over M}}-1} \right)\exp \left[ {-\left( {M+\sqrt {\psi _i}} \right)^2} \right]\hfill\cr} \right\}$
84 Clifford
December 13, 2006 at 11:00 am

It did, but the system shrunk it a bit and it looks too compressed. You can see that the full gif image is much nicer. Click here.

-cvj
85 Amara
December 13, 2006 at 11:17 am

Way cool! Let’s look at some partial derivatives… We want to find points near a circle, so then to minimize $Q(x_c,y_c,R)=\sum_{i=1}^N\left[(x_i-x_c)^2+(y_i-y_c)^2-R^2\right]^2\,.$ . Our partial derivatives are: $$\frac{\partial Q}{\partial x_c} = -4\sum_{i=1}^N \left[(x_i)-x_c)^2+(y_i-y_c)^2-R^2\right](x_i-x_c)=0\,,$[$ and $\frac{\partial Q}{\partial y_c} = -4\sum_{i=1}^N \left[(x_i)-x_c)^2+(y_i-y_c)^2-R^2\right](y_i-y_c)=0\,,$ and $\frac{\partial Q}{\partial R} = -4R\sum_{i=1}^N \left[(x_i)-x_c)^2+(y_i-y_c)^2-R^2\right]=0\,.$ . From which $R^2=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\left[(x_i-x_c)^2+(y_i-y_c)^2\right]\,,$ .
The answer is here:
$\sum_{i=1}^Nx_i\left[(x_i-x_c)^2+(y_i-y_c)^2\right] =\frac{1}{N}\left(\sum_{i=1}^Nx_i\right) \sum_{i=1}^N\left[(x_i-x_c)^2+(y_i-y_c)^2\right]\,,$ ,
$\sum_{i=1}^Ny_i\left[(x_i-x_c)^2+(y_i-y_c)^2\right] =\frac{1}{N}\left(\sum_{i=1}^Ny_i\right) \sum_{i=1}^N\left[(x_i-x_c)^2+(y_i-y_c)^2\right]\,.$
I hope it looks pretty…
86 Amara
December 13, 2006 at 11:19 am

OK, looks a bit confused. My inline equations should have been on