# Typesetting variants of sum and integral signs in MathJax

Is there any way to enforce the lower and upper limits of integrals and sums to appear below and above the respective signs in MathJax (cf e.g. the German variant described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_symbol and https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/170028/integral-sign-int)?

There doesn't seem be native support in MathJax, so I would appreciate suggestions for workarounds.

I need those variants for transcribing historical mathematical German texts and would also like to replicate the appearance of formulas as close as possible.

• I you're looking to obtain this $\int\limits_0^1$ instead of this $\int_0^1$, then just use "\limits" after "\int". – Zacky Jan 18 '20 at 13:34
• It seems that in centered formulas there is a difference between \int_0^1 f(x) dx and \int\limits_0^1 f(x) dx. (Actually, I did not know this until know - I only saw that in the Wikipedia article you linked.) Here is the comparison: $$\int_0^1 f(x) dx \qquad \int\limits_0^1 f(x) dx.$$ I am not sure whether this is what you're trying to get. (In the previous comment, Zacky also used \limits to get similar effect in the inline mode.) – Martin Sleziak Jan 18 '20 at 13:38
• @MartinSleziak I'm trying to get what's on the right; at least for out of line formulas. – Manfred Weis Jan 18 '20 at 13:43
• So I guess that the inline formulas you could try $\int\limits_0^1 f(x) dx$ $\int\limits_0^1 f(x) dx$ or $\displaystyle\int\limits_0^1 f(x) dx$ $\displaystyle\int\limits_0^1 f(x) dx$. (Which is basically the suggestion from the first comment. Personally, I avoid \displaystyle in inline formulas, but probably this is a matter of taste and writing style.) – Martin Sleziak Jan 18 '20 at 13:46
• Zacky and Martin, thanks for the helpful feedback; would either of you add that to the MathJax tutorial math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/… so that it doesn't get lost? – Manfred Weis Jan 18 '20 at 13:49
• Also for in-line sums (and products, etc.) \prod_{j=1}^5 T_j = \prod\limits_{j=1}^5 T_j $\prod_{j=1}^5 T_j = \prod\limits_{j=1}^5 T_j$. Also, in some styles of writing, we want ${}_a\!\int^b f(x)\;dx$. – GEdgar Jan 18 '20 at 13:50
• For other signs (not integrals) something like this works too I guess: $\underset{n=0}{\overset{\infty}\sum}f(n)$, produced by "\underset{n=0}{\overset{\infty}\sum}f(n)". But I wouldn't recommend using it. – Zacky Jan 18 '20 at 13:54
• @ManfredWeis Well, \limits are already mentioned there,in the answer about limits. I am not sure, maybe something could be added to the answer about displaystyle I'll leave editing of the tutorial to others. The MathOverflow Meta FAQ on MathJax has an example with sums. – Martin Sleziak Jan 18 '20 at 13:57
• @Zacky I think limits work just as fine with sums: $\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty a_n$ $\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty a_n$. Would you be willing to summarize some of the stuff mentioned in comments and post it as an answer? BTW we can also discuss this in the MathJax room, if we want to avoid too long discussion in comments. – Martin Sleziak Jan 18 '20 at 13:59

In order to get the preferred notation in accordance with ISO 80000-2, use

$$\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {a_i}$$


$$\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {a_i}$$

However, the following notations are also used

$$\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^n {a_i}$$

$$\sum\limits_i {a_i}$$

$$\sum\nolimits_i {a_i}$$

$$\sum {a_i}$$


$$\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^n {a_i}$$

$$\sum\limits_i {a_i}$$

$$\sum\nolimits_i {a_i}$$

$$\sum {a_i}$$

• \limits has no effect when the notation is displayed rather than inline. Thus: $$\sum_{i=1}^n$$ This is coded as \sum_{i=1}^n. What is the purpose of the {curly braces} where you wrote {a_i}? Omission of the braces yields the same result. – Michael Hardy Jan 20 '20 at 7:02

This more-or-less summarizes some of the stuff which has already been said in the comments. If I understood correctly, the OP is asking about getting indices above/below the sign for integral or sum. I hope this answers the question at least partially.

Probably the best thing to do is to show some examples:

• In the inline mode we can write $\sum_{n=0}^\infty x_n$ or $\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty x_n$ to get $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty x_n$$ or $$\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty x_n$$. Similarly for integrals $\int_0^1 f(x) \;dx$ vs. $\int\limits_0^1 f(x) \;dx$ gives $$\int_0^1 f(x) \;dx$$ vs. $$\int\limits_0^1 f(x) \;dx$$
• In centered formulas, there is a difference for integrals, but not for sums. You can compare $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty x_n$$ with $$\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty x_n$$ and R$\int_0^1 f(x) \;dx$ with $$\int\limits_0^1 f(x) \;dx.$$ $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty x_n \qquad \sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty x_n\\ \int_0^1 f(x) \;dx \qquad \int\limits_0^1 f(x) \;dx.$$
• In inline mode, you can also use \displaystyle. Again including/excluding \limits makes a difference for integrals, but not for sums. I'll leave the question, whether or not this is a good style of writing, to the people who know more about LaTeX and typography than I do. Still, I'll include the examples: $\displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^\infty x_n$ vs. $\displaystyle\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty x_n$ gives $$\displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^\infty x_n$$ vs. $$\displaystyle\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty x_n$$; $\displaystyle\int_0^1 f(x) \;dx$ vs. $\displaystyle\int\limits_0^1 f(x) \;dx$ gives $$\displaystyle\int_0^1 f(x) \;dx$$ vs. $$\displaystyle\int\limits_0^1 f(x) \;dx$$.