Timeline for When $\LaTeX$-ifying, please use stacked fractions
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2012 at 18:04 | comment | added | Isaac | @JyrkiLahtonen: I can understand making that decision based on size and spacing when it does not affect the readability or interpretability of the question, but it has been my experience that—specifically at a pre-calculus or non-math-major level—using slash fractions is very likely to lead to misreading or misinterpretation. | |
| Apr 7, 2012 at 6:41 | comment | added | Jyrki Lahtonen | FWIW I'm in the slash-fraction camp. That way I get a reasonable size font without the IMHO very disturbing change in line spacing. As an alternative I would consider using the exponent $-1$. That has the benefit of working also when the product is non-commutative. | |
| Oct 21, 2011 at 15:52 | answer | added | Michael Hardy | timeline score: 11 | |
| Oct 21, 2011 at 10:42 | answer | added | user7530 | timeline score: 8 | |
| Oct 20, 2011 at 19:32 | answer | added | Cheerful Parsnip | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 20, 2011 at 14:13 | answer | added | Phira | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 20, 2011 at 11:46 | history | edited | J. M. ain't a mathematician |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 12, 2011 at 0:59 | comment | added | Ross Millikan | For simple things, I find non $LaTeX$ slash fractions acceptable, easier to type, and faster to display. For example, if you are saying " the sum should run up to n/2 because" before you actually display the sum. But generally I like the stacked ones. There are may kinds of $LaTeX$ that cause me to hit Ctrl+ to zoom in, not just fractions. | |
| Feb 10, 2011 at 18:01 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @willie: I think it would be wise to expand Isaac's suggestions into general advice on how to choose among the various ways to typeset fractions. The reason mentioned by Isaac is just one of many that may factor into the decision making process. I'd be happy to do this were it not for the fact that I'm sure there are others here who have much more (recent) experience than I with $\LaTeX$ and MathJax. So I defer to them, | |
| Feb 10, 2011 at 16:37 | comment | added | Isaac | @Arturo: To be fair, the compact OED includes a magnifying glass and isn't exactly typeset that way (it's the typeset plates of the full OED reduced to fit like 9 to a page). :) | |
| Feb 10, 2011 at 12:25 | comment | added | Willie Wong Mod |
I think MathJax supports \dfrac, let me try: $\dfrac{a}{b}$. Yep. @Bill: would you be happier if the suggestion above is changed to use \dfrac instead of \frac?
|
|
| Feb 10, 2011 at 5:29 | comment | added | Arturo Magidin | @All: I for one have several times changed in-line equations to displayed equations precisely because the in-line display seemed too small. (And: @Bill: some books are typeset to require the use of magnifying glasses; amazon.com/… | |
| Feb 10, 2011 at 3:05 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | Yes, obviously it depends on many factors, visual acuity, distance from the screen, default fonts, etc. I too can read the stacked fraction - but not as easily as the slashed one. But very few people would be able to easily read subscripts on such. So one needs to exercise caution before unconditionally applying your suggestion. I too prefer stacked fractions in certain contexts where they better reflect structure (e.g. cancellations). But I am usually careful to make sure they are legible when I employ them. | |
| Feb 10, 2011 at 1:23 | comment | added | Isaac | @Bill: "Require" is quite subjective—I find the stacked fraction $\frac{a}{b}$ quite readable on a 12" 1400x1050 display and I know people who would find it unreadably small on a 65" 1080p TV. | |
| Feb 10, 2011 at 1:18 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | @Isaac: Magnifying glasses were ubiquitous before computers, but books were not typeset so to require their use. | |
| Feb 10, 2011 at 0:45 | comment | added | Isaac | @Bill: While that's true, if you're doing the $\LaTeX$-ifying, you can make them display-style if sizing is an issue. Also, browser-based page-zoom is pretty ubiquitous nowadays. | |
| Feb 9, 2011 at 23:58 | comment | added | Bill Dubuque | The problem with non-displaymode stacked fractions is that they often end up using fonts too small to be legible. For example, your stacked fraction above is barely legible to me even on my 30" 2560x1600 monitor. This leaves no room for further font size reductions, e.g. subscripts or exponents on the fraction would be illegible. Contrast this to the non-stacked version, which uses much larger fonts. | |
| Feb 9, 2011 at 20:04 | history | asked | Isaac | CC BY-SA 2.5 |