Screenshot instructions:
Windows
Mac
Red Hat Linux
Ubuntu
Click URL instructions:
Rightclick on ad, choose "Copy Link", then paste here →
(This may not be possible with some types of ads)
From: shreyes shiv <shivshreyes@gm...>  20110320 16:46:00

the bibliography style "alpha" is a ieee standard ?  shreyes shiv email: shivshreyes@... phone: 9557975780 IIRS(Indian Institute of Remote Sensing) No. 4, Kalidas Road, Dehradun248001, Uttarakhand, India 
From: Aleks Kleyn <Aleks_Kleyn@MailAPS.org>  20110320 17:59:12

I very often use in text the expression like \[ A_{1\cdot}{}^i_k \] However I put attention that index k is positioned bellow than index 1. There is impression like k is index for 1. How I can make sure that index k is positioned on the same lavel as 1. Thank you Aleks Kleyn http://sites.google.com/site/AleksKleyn/ http://arxiv.org/a/kleyn_a_1 http://AleksKleyn.blogspot.com/ 
From: Enrico Toniolo <EToniolo@ca...>  20110321 08:42:50

Hi, maybe this is ok for you: A_{1\cdot k}^{\hphantom{1\cdot}i} \bye ENRICO TONIOLO Aleks Kleyn <Aleks_Kleyn@...> wrote on 20/03/2011 18.29.05: > I very often use in text the expression like > \[ > A_{1\cdot}{}^i_k > \] > However I put attention that index k is positioned bellow than index 1. > There is impression like k is index for 1. How I can make sure that index k > is positioned on the same lavel as 1. > > Thank you > Aleks Kleyn > http://sites.google.com/site/AleksKleyn/ > http://arxiv.org/a/kleyn_a_1 > http://AleksKleyn.blogspot.com/ > > > >  > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit > for your organization  today and in the future. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internapsfd2d > _______________________________________________ > MiKTeXUsers mailing list > MiKTeXUsers@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ATTENTION: This email message contains confidential and/or legally privileged information intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution of the contents of this email message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please call us immediately to let us know and delete it by your computer. Thank you. ATTENZIONE: Le informazioni contenute nella presente comunicazione possono essere riservate e sono comunque destinate esclusivamente alle persone sopraindicate. Nel caso in cui il presente messaggio venga ricevuto da persona diversa dal destinatario si avverte che ne sono proibite la diffusione, la distribuzione nonché l’estrazione di copia. Nel caso aveste ricevuto il presente messaggio per errore Vi preghiamo di informarci immediatamente per telefono e di eliminarlo dal vostro computer. Grazie. ATTENTION: Les informations contenues dans la présente communication sont couvertes par le secret professionnel et sont à l’attention exclusive de leur destinataire. Toute utilisation, distribution, divulgation ou reproduction en sont interdites. En cas d’erreur de transmission, nous vous prions de nous en informer immédiatement par téléphone et d'éliminer le présent message email de votre ordinateur. Merci. ATENCION: Este mensaje es solamente para la persona a la que va dirigido. Puede contener información confidencial o legalmente protegida. No debe, directa o indirectamente, usar, revelar, distribuir, imprimir o copiar ninguna de las partes de este mensaje si no es usted el destinatario. Si usted ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que borre de su sistema inmediatamente el mensaje y rogamos de informarnos inmediatamente por teléfono, y destruirlo y eliminarlo de su ordenador. Gracias. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
From: Mike \Pomax\ Kamermans <pomax@ni...>  20110321 15:41:10

On 3/20/2011 10:29 AM, Aleks Kleyn wrote: > I very often use in text the expression like > \[ > A_{1\cdot}{}^i_k > \] > However I put attention that index k is positioned bellow than index 1. > There is impression like k is index for 1. How I can make sure that index k > is positioned on the same lavel as 1. Just out of curiosity, with "k" on the same line, what does your expression say? I don't know what you intend to write, but with "k" on the baseline for "1", I see "1 (dot) kwithioverit", with the "i" belonging to "k", and nothing else. If that's what you intended to write, then your TeX formula is wrong. It would be better to then write your formula as three components that follow each other, possibly with using relstack and phantom commands to ensure correct alignment. If, however, you meant "1 (dot)" with a superscript "i" and subscript "k", then "k" should not be on the baseline for "1" at all, because it's only a subscript if it's lower than the parent's baseline. There are various ways to force "1" and "k" to share the same baseline, but what is the mathematical concept you're trying to write out?  Mike "Pomax" Kamermans nihongoresources.com 
From: Aleks Kleyn <Aleks_Kleyn@MailAPS.org>  20110322 02:08:05

I will try to explain. Assume I use transformation f. then it has coordinates f^i_j. however I may have so much these transformations that I need to enumerate f itself. If I write f^i_{kj} then it is not clear the function of k. does it enumerates f or this is index. So I clearly separate indexes that serves different functionality and each group is separated by symbol \cdot. If structure of all such indexes is the same I could use macros to write as was suggested f_{k\cdot j}^{\hphantom{k\cdot}i} (it works); but I have different index structures. It may be for instance C_1{}^i_{kl}{}^{pq}_r I use such indexes when I study tower of representations or components of Gateaux derivative. And when derivative is of high order in module I need clearly separate index that enumerates function from index that enumerate independent variable. Aleks Kleyn http://sites.google.com/site/AleksKleyn/ http://arxiv.org/a/kleyn_a_1 http://AleksKleyn.blogspot.com/ Original Message From: Mike "Pomax" Kamermans [mailto:pomax@...] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:42 AM To: A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions. Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index On 3/20/2011 10:29 AM, Aleks Kleyn wrote: > I very often use in text the expression like > \[ > A_{1\cdot}{}^i_k > \] > However I put attention that index k is positioned bellow than index 1. > There is impression like k is index for 1. How I can make sure that index k > is positioned on the same lavel as 1. Just out of curiosity, with "k" on the same line, what does your expression say? I don't know what you intend to write, but with "k" on the baseline for "1", I see "1 (dot) kwithioverit", with the "i" belonging to "k", and nothing else. If that's what you intended to write, then your TeX formula is wrong. It would be better to then write your formula as three components that follow each other, possibly with using relstack and phantom commands to ensure correct alignment. If, however, you meant "1 (dot)" with a superscript "i" and subscript "k", then "k" should not be on the baseline for "1" at all, because it's only a subscript if it's lower than the parent's baseline. There are various ways to force "1" and "k" to share the same baseline, but what is the mathematical concept you're trying to write out?  Mike "Pomax" Kamermans nihongoresources.com   Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization  today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internapsfd2d _______________________________________________ MiKTeXUsers mailing list MiKTeXUsers@... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers 
From: Alex Degtyarev <degt@fe...>  20110322 07:00:40

I would try to start with $ C{}_1{}^i_{kl}{}^{pq}_r $ At the expense of slightly worse position of the first index, this should level them all. > Original Message > From: Aleks Kleyn [mailto:Aleks_Kleyn@...] > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:08 AM > To: 'A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions.' > Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index > > I will try to explain. Assume I use transformation f. then it has > coordinates f^i_j. however I may have so much these transformations > that I > need to enumerate f itself. If I write f^i_{kj} then it is not clear > the > function of k. does it enumerates f or this is index. So I clearly > separate > indexes that serves different functionality and each group is separated > by > symbol \cdot. If structure of all such indexes is the same I could use > macros to write as was suggested > f_{k\cdot j}^{\hphantom{k\cdot}i} (it works); but I have different > index > structures. It may be for instance > C_1{}^i_{kl}{}^{pq}_r > I use such indexes when I study tower of representations or components > of > Gateaux derivative. And when derivative is of high order in module I > need > clearly separate index that enumerates function from index that > enumerate > independent variable. > > Aleks Kleyn > http://sites.google.com/site/AleksKleyn/ > http://arxiv.org/a/kleyn_a_1 > http://AleksKleyn.blogspot.com/ > > Original Message > From: Mike "Pomax" Kamermans [mailto:pomax@...] > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:42 AM > To: A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions. > Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index > > On 3/20/2011 10:29 AM, Aleks Kleyn wrote: > > I very often use in text the expression like > > \[ > > A_{1\cdot}{}^i_k > > \] > > However I put attention that index k is positioned bellow than index > 1. > > There is impression like k is index for 1. How I can make sure that > index > k > > is positioned on the same lavel as 1. > > Just out of curiosity, with "k" on the same line, what does your > expression say? I don't know what you intend to write, but with "k" on > the baseline for "1", I see "1 (dot) kwithioverit", with the "i" > belonging to "k", and nothing else. If that's what you intended to > write, then your TeX formula is wrong. It would be better to then write > your formula as three components that follow each other, possibly with > using relstack and phantom commands to ensure correct alignment. If, > however, you meant "1 (dot)" with a superscript "i" and subscript "k", > then "k" should not be on the baseline for "1" at all, because it's > only > a subscript if it's lower than the parent's baseline. > > There are various ways to force "1" and "k" to share the same baseline, > but what is the mathematical concept you're trying to write out? > >  Mike "Pomax" Kamermans > nihongoresources.com > >  >  >  > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit > for your organization  today and in the future. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internapsfd2d > _______________________________________________ > MiKTeXUsers mailing list > MiKTeXUsers@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers > > >  >  > Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet > the > growing manageability and security demands of your customers. > Businesses > are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology  will your > software > be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker > today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/inteldev2devmar > _______________________________________________ > MiKTeXUsers mailing list > MiKTeXUsers@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers 
From: Aleks Kleyn <alekskleyn@op...>  20110323 01:55:08

I tried yesterday this option before send email. Even in case {}_iA_i{}_i all indexes are on the same level. As soon I change second i to {i\cdot} or {i.} or {i\,} level of third i changes. Is it a bug or special formatting is not clear. Aleks Kleyn http://sites.google.com/site/AleksKleyn/ http://arxiv.org/a/kleyn_a_1 http://AleksKleyn.blogspot.com/ Original Message From: Alex Degtyarev [mailto:degt@...] Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:00 AM To: 'A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions.' Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index I would try to start with $ C{}_1{}^i_{kl}{}^{pq}_r $ At the expense of slightly worse position of the first index, this should level them all. > Original Message > From: Aleks Kleyn [mailto:Aleks_Kleyn@...] > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:08 AM > To: 'A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions.' > Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index > > I will try to explain. Assume I use transformation f. then it has > coordinates f^i_j. however I may have so much these transformations > that I > need to enumerate f itself. If I write f^i_{kj} then it is not clear > the > function of k. does it enumerates f or this is index. So I clearly > separate > indexes that serves different functionality and each group is separated > by > symbol \cdot. If structure of all such indexes is the same I could use > macros to write as was suggested > f_{k\cdot j}^{\hphantom{k\cdot}i} (it works); but I have different > index > structures. It may be for instance > C_1{}^i_{kl}{}^{pq}_r > I use such indexes when I study tower of representations or components > of > Gateaux derivative. And when derivative is of high order in module I > need > clearly separate index that enumerates function from index that > enumerate > independent variable. > > Aleks Kleyn > http://sites.google.com/site/AleksKleyn/ > http://arxiv.org/a/kleyn_a_1 > http://AleksKleyn.blogspot.com/ > > Original Message > From: Mike "Pomax" Kamermans [mailto:pomax@...] > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:42 AM > To: A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions. > Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index > > On 3/20/2011 10:29 AM, Aleks Kleyn wrote: > > I very often use in text the expression like > > \[ > > A_{1\cdot}{}^i_k > > \] > > However I put attention that index k is positioned bellow than index > 1. > > There is impression like k is index for 1. How I can make sure that > index > k > > is positioned on the same lavel as 1. > > Just out of curiosity, with "k" on the same line, what does your > expression say? I don't know what you intend to write, but with "k" on > the baseline for "1", I see "1 (dot) kwithioverit", with the "i" > belonging to "k", and nothing else. If that's what you intended to > write, then your TeX formula is wrong. It would be better to then write > your formula as three components that follow each other, possibly with > using relstack and phantom commands to ensure correct alignment. If, > however, you meant "1 (dot)" with a superscript "i" and subscript "k", > then "k" should not be on the baseline for "1" at all, because it's > only > a subscript if it's lower than the parent's baseline. > > There are various ways to force "1" and "k" to share the same baseline, > but what is the mathematical concept you're trying to write out? > >  Mike "Pomax" Kamermans > nihongoresources.com > >  >  >  > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit > for your organization  today and in the future. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internapsfd2d > _______________________________________________ > MiKTeXUsers mailing list > MiKTeXUsers@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers > > >  >  > Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet > the > growing manageability and security demands of your customers. > Businesses > are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology  will your > software > be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker > today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/inteldev2devmar > _______________________________________________ > MiKTeXUsers mailing list > MiKTeXUsers@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers   Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology  will your software be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/inteldev2devmar _______________________________________________ MiKTeXUsers mailing list MiKTeXUsers@... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers 
From: Alex Degtyarev <degt@fe...>  20110323 06:15:23

I think I understand your problem: it is cause by the double indices; the upper index changes the position of the lower one. I just tried this: $A_{i\cdot}^{\phantom{j}}{}_i^j$ and it seems OK. > Original Message > From: Aleks Kleyn [mailto:alekskleyn@...] > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:55 AM > To: 'A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions.' > Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index > > I tried yesterday this option before send email. Even in case > {}_iA_i{}_i > all indexes are on the same level. As soon I change second i to > {i\cdot} or > {i.} or {i\,} level of third i changes. Is it a bug or special > formatting is > not clear. > > Aleks Kleyn > http://sites.google.com/site/AleksKleyn/ > http://arxiv.org/a/kleyn_a_1 > http://AleksKleyn.blogspot.com/ > > Original Message > From: Alex Degtyarev [mailto:degt@...] > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:00 AM > To: 'A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions.' > Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index > > I would try to start with $ C{}_1{}^i_{kl}{}^{pq}_r $ > At the expense of slightly worse position of the first index, this > should > level them all. > > > Original Message > > From: Aleks Kleyn [mailto:Aleks_Kleyn@...] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:08 AM > > To: 'A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions.' > > Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index > > > > I will try to explain. Assume I use transformation f. then it has > > coordinates f^i_j. however I may have so much these transformations > > that I > > need to enumerate f itself. If I write f^i_{kj} then it is not clear > > the > > function of k. does it enumerates f or this is index. So I clearly > > separate > > indexes that serves different functionality and each group is > separated > > by > > symbol \cdot. If structure of all such indexes is the same I could > use > > macros to write as was suggested > > f_{k\cdot j}^{\hphantom{k\cdot}i} (it works); but I have different > > index > > structures. It may be for instance > > C_1{}^i_{kl}{}^{pq}_r > > I use such indexes when I study tower of representations or > components > > of > > Gateaux derivative. And when derivative is of high order in module I > > need > > clearly separate index that enumerates function from index that > > enumerate > > independent variable. > > > > Aleks Kleyn > > http://sites.google.com/site/AleksKleyn/ > > http://arxiv.org/a/kleyn_a_1 > > http://AleksKleyn.blogspot.com/ > > > > Original Message > > From: Mike "Pomax" Kamermans [mailto:pomax@...] > > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:42 AM > > To: A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions. > > Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index > > > > On 3/20/2011 10:29 AM, Aleks Kleyn wrote: > > > I very often use in text the expression like > > > \[ > > > A_{1\cdot}{}^i_k > > > \] > > > However I put attention that index k is positioned bellow than > index > > 1. > > > There is impression like k is index for 1. How I can make sure that > > index > > k > > > is positioned on the same lavel as 1. > > > > Just out of curiosity, with "k" on the same line, what does your > > expression say? I don't know what you intend to write, but with "k" > on > > the baseline for "1", I see "1 (dot) kwithioverit", with the "i" > > belonging to "k", and nothing else. If that's what you intended to > > write, then your TeX formula is wrong. It would be better to then > write > > your formula as three components that follow each other, possibly > with > > using relstack and phantom commands to ensure correct alignment. If, > > however, you meant "1 (dot)" with a superscript "i" and subscript > "k", > > then "k" should not be on the baseline for "1" at all, because it's > > only > > a subscript if it's lower than the parent's baseline. > > > > There are various ways to force "1" and "k" to share the same > baseline, > > but what is the mathematical concept you're trying to write out? > > > >  Mike "Pomax" Kamermans > > nihongoresources.com > > > >  >  > >  > >  > > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting > > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit > > for your organization  today and in the future. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internapsfd2d > > _______________________________________________ > > MiKTeXUsers mailing list > > MiKTeXUsers@... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers > > > > > >  >  > >  > > Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to > meet > > the > > growing manageability and security demands of your customers. > > Businesses > > are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology  will your > > software > > be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability > Checker > > today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/inteldev2devmar > > _______________________________________________ > > MiKTeXUsers mailing list > > MiKTeXUsers@... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers > > >  >  >  > Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet > the > growing manageability and security demands of your customers. > Businesses > are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology  will your > software > be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker > today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/inteldev2devmar > _______________________________________________ > MiKTeXUsers mailing list > MiKTeXUsers@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers > > >  >  > Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet > the > growing manageability and security demands of your customers. > Businesses > are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology  will your > software > be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker > today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/inteldev2devmar > _______________________________________________ > MiKTeXUsers mailing list > MiKTeXUsers@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers 
From: Philip G. Ratcliffe <philip.ratcliffe@un...>  20110323 09:50:13

> I think I understand your problem: it is cause by the double indices; > the > upper index changes the position of the lower one. I just tried this: > $A_{i\cdot}^{\phantom{j}}{}_i^j$ > and it seems OK. Yes, that's precisely what my solution \[A^{}_{i\cdot}{}^i_j\] solved  the resulting output is identical to yours in this case. However, in general, \vphantom would be better, to avoid spurious horizontal space in the case of a particularly wide character. Cheers, Phil 
From: Philip G. Ratcliffe <philip.ratcliffe@fa...>  20110321 20:45:48

> I very often use in text the expression like > \[ > A_{1\cdot}{}^i_k > \] > However I put attention that index k is positioned bellow than index 1. > There is impression like k is index for 1. How I can make sure that > index k is positioned on the same lavel as 1. The "tensor" package should help you out. However, for a oneoff solution try A^{}_{1\cdot}{}^i_k Cheers, Phil 
From: Aleks Kleyn <Aleks_Kleyn@MailAPS.org>  20110324 01:34:50

This is good idea. It can be done even simpler $A_{i\cdot}^{}{}_i^j$ It also works. Aleks Kleyn http://sites.google.com/site/AleksKleyn/ http://arxiv.org/a/kleyn_a_1 http://AleksKleyn.blogspot.com/ Original Message From: Alex Degtyarev [mailto:degt@...] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:15 AM To: 'A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions.' Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index I think I understand your problem: it is cause by the double indices; the upper index changes the position of the lower one. I just tried this: $A_{i\cdot}^{\phantom{j}}{}_i^j$ and it seems OK. > Original Message > From: Aleks Kleyn [mailto:alekskleyn@...] > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:55 AM > To: 'A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions.' > Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index > > I tried yesterday this option before send email. Even in case > {}_iA_i{}_i > all indexes are on the same level. As soon I change second i to > {i\cdot} or > {i.} or {i\,} level of third i changes. Is it a bug or special > formatting is > not clear. > > Aleks Kleyn > http://sites.google.com/site/AleksKleyn/ > http://arxiv.org/a/kleyn_a_1 > http://AleksKleyn.blogspot.com/ > > Original Message > From: Alex Degtyarev [mailto:degt@...] > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:00 AM > To: 'A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions.' > Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index > > I would try to start with $ C{}_1{}^i_{kl}{}^{pq}_r $ > At the expense of slightly worse position of the first index, this > should > level them all. > > > Original Message > > From: Aleks Kleyn [mailto:Aleks_Kleyn@...] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:08 AM > > To: 'A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions.' > > Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index > > > > I will try to explain. Assume I use transformation f. then it has > > coordinates f^i_j. however I may have so much these transformations > > that I > > need to enumerate f itself. If I write f^i_{kj} then it is not clear > > the > > function of k. does it enumerates f or this is index. So I clearly > > separate > > indexes that serves different functionality and each group is > separated > > by > > symbol \cdot. If structure of all such indexes is the same I could > use > > macros to write as was suggested > > f_{k\cdot j}^{\hphantom{k\cdot}i} (it works); but I have different > > index > > structures. It may be for instance > > C_1{}^i_{kl}{}^{pq}_r > > I use such indexes when I study tower of representations or > components > > of > > Gateaux derivative. And when derivative is of high order in module I > > need > > clearly separate index that enumerates function from index that > > enumerate > > independent variable. > > > > Aleks Kleyn > > http://sites.google.com/site/AleksKleyn/ > > http://arxiv.org/a/kleyn_a_1 > > http://AleksKleyn.blogspot.com/ > > > > Original Message > > From: Mike "Pomax" Kamermans [mailto:pomax@...] > > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:42 AM > > To: A place for MiKTeX users to discuss MiKTeX related questions. > > Subject: Re: [MiKTeX] structured index > > > > On 3/20/2011 10:29 AM, Aleks Kleyn wrote: > > > I very often use in text the expression like > > > \[ > > > A_{1\cdot}{}^i_k > > > \] > > > However I put attention that index k is positioned bellow than > index > > 1. > > > There is impression like k is index for 1. How I can make sure that > > index > > k > > > is positioned on the same lavel as 1. > > > > Just out of curiosity, with "k" on the same line, what does your > > expression say? I don't know what you intend to write, but with "k" > on > > the baseline for "1", I see "1 (dot) kwithioverit", with the "i" > > belonging to "k", and nothing else. If that's what you intended to > > write, then your TeX formula is wrong. It would be better to then > write > > your formula as three components that follow each other, possibly > with > > using relstack and phantom commands to ensure correct alignment. If, > > however, you meant "1 (dot)" with a superscript "i" and subscript > "k", > > then "k" should not be on the baseline for "1" at all, because it's > > only > > a subscript if it's lower than the parent's baseline. > > > > There are various ways to force "1" and "k" to share the same > baseline, > > but what is the mathematical concept you're trying to write out? > > > >  Mike "Pomax" Kamermans > > nihongoresources.com > > > >  >  > >  > >  > > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting > > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit > > for your organization  today and in the future. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internapsfd2d > > _______________________________________________ > > MiKTeXUsers mailing list > > MiKTeXUsers@... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers > > > > > >  >  > >  > > Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to > meet > > the > > growing manageability and security demands of your customers. > > Businesses > > are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology  will your > > software > > be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability > Checker > > today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/inteldev2devmar > > _______________________________________________ > > MiKTeXUsers mailing list > > MiKTeXUsers@... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers > > >  >  >  > Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet > the > growing manageability and security demands of your customers. > Businesses > are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology  will your > software > be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker > today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/inteldev2devmar > _______________________________________________ > MiKTeXUsers mailing list > MiKTeXUsers@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers > > >  >  > Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet > the > growing manageability and security demands of your customers. > Businesses > are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology  will your > software > be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker > today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/inteldev2devmar > _______________________________________________ > MiKTeXUsers mailing list > MiKTeXUsers@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers   Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology  will your software be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/inteldev2devmar _______________________________________________ MiKTeXUsers mailing list MiKTeXUsers@... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miktexusers 
Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:
No, thanks