Timeline for Why don't we have the physics MathJax extension enabled? Should we?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2020 at 15:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 21, 2019 at 11:37 | comment | added | user191954 | @EmilioPisanty Fair enough. I've added a little note regarding this because I can't downvote my own answer to say that I don't want the physics package to be added :P | |
| Jan 21, 2019 at 4:48 | history | edited | user191954 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 266 characters in body
|
| Jan 20, 2019 at 20:17 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | (FWIW, I'd rather you didn't delete this - it's about as cogent of an argument as can be made for adding the extension, I think, and the votes on it are a valuable weathergauge on the community's response to those arguments.) | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:50 | comment | added | user191954 | Hehe I just saw your comment about how this answer is about the package and not the mathjax. That's exactly I've done. Oops! I was under the impression that the difference would be negligible; apparently that's not the case. | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:49 | comment | added | user191954 | @EmilioPisanty Yikes! that is pretty broken if it's working perfect on my latex editor, but the webpage which renders it as mathjax throws up those errors (yep, I see them too). We're talking about a web version, so this is a big enough issue. I've decided that while I do like the package overall for LaTeX, where it works well, it's not a very good idea for this site. I'll probably delete this answer sometime soon, since it recommends we add the physics extension, but I'm interested in seeing what alephzero was trying to say about the derivatives. | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:46 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | More generally, it seems that this answer pertains explicitly to the LaTeX package and not the MathJax extension. This thread deals exclusively with the latter. | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:43 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty |
As for the convenience of writing \curl, sure, it's certainly nice to be able to use semantically-indicative source of that type. But it shouldn't come at the expense of correct typesetting (and definitely not for stuff that we'd be enabling as defaults).
|
|
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:42 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | @Chair Everything pointed out in red in this screen capture is broken. If it compiles correctly on your system then that just means that the system is unreliable, which makes it even worse. | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:38 | comment | added | user191954 |
Regarding the nabla, I imagine it could get annoying, but when I'm writing stuff I prefer \grad and \curl because I read that stuff as grad and curl. Maybe you (and most other people on this site :P) have had practice writing the nabla, in which case that point would be as good invalid. But as someone who isn't used to writing it much, I'll confidently say the ugliness of the bold is mild but the convenience is quite nice.
|
|
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:38 | comment | added | user191954 | @EmilioPisanty In my reply to alephzero, I had a quick picture which makes some elementary comparisons. The bra-ket notation looks exactly the same as l/r-angle for me. However, I've only ever used it for pretty rudimentary stuff. Do you mean to say that there's some reasonably common case wherein it looks broken? | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:32 | comment | added | user191954 | @alephzero I'm not quite sure what you mean about it being ugly... I threw together a quick test and the conventional LaTeX math produces some indistinguishable output. See i.sstatic.net/BtCXy.png Perhaps you could put in a picture regarding the difference? Is it something to do with the version for mathjax being different somehow? | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:14 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | As for your point 2, the bold-font gradient, divergence and curl are distinct negatives, I think. The $\nabla$ operator is already and always a vector operator; there's no notational gain to be had from typesetting it in bold font (i.e. doing so does not clear up any ambiguities or add any clarity), and a distinct notational loss (since it adds unnecessary emphasis, which makes for an uneven emphasis that makes it harder to read). | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:11 | comment | added | Emilio Pisanty | From the examples page linked in the extension's homepage, the bra-ket part of the package looks pretty broken to me. | |
| Jan 19, 2019 at 17:11 | comment | added | alephzero | There's nothing "perfect" about the disgustingly ugly typesetting that puts the two subscript "n"s at different heights, presumably because of the way the upright "d" was implemented in the package. If that's an example of the best it can do, it belongs in the trash can IMO, and doesn't belong anywhere that claims to use LaTeX in a professional way. | |
| Jan 19, 2019 at 3:15 | history | edited | user191954 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 115 characters in body
|
| Jan 19, 2019 at 2:50 | history | answered | user191954 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
