Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 26th 2011
   • (edited Apr 26th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat's the good way to typeset here the notation used in sequent caluclus, in rewrite rules or for adjuncts: two terms, one above and one below a horizontal line? Is \frac the way to go? Sounds wrong. Though the output looks okay.

   What’s the good way to typeset here the notation used in sequent caluclus, in rewrite rules or for adjuncts: two terms, one above and one below a horizontal line?

   Is

     \frac
   

   the way to go? Sounds wrong. Though the output looks okay.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
   • CommentTimeApr 26th 2011
   • (edited Apr 26th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: FinnLawler
   Format: MarkdownItexThat's the method I've used, and it works fine for inference rules. It doesn't seem to be possible to nest `\frac`s the way you'd want for proof trees, though. Edit: hmm, looks like it worked for your mini-example at [[sequent calculus]].

   That’s the method I’ve used, and it works fine for inference rules. It doesn’t seem to be possible to nest \fracs the way you’d want for proof trees, though.

   Edit: hmm, looks like it worked for your mini-example at sequent calculus.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUlrik
   • CommentTimeApr 26th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Ulrik
   Format: MarkdownItexFWIW, in stand-alone LaTeX, I use [Sam Buss' style file](http://math.ucsd.edu/~sbuss/ResearchWeb/bussproofs/index.html). I don't know how that might be adapted to the nlab/Itex, though.

   FWIW, in stand-alone LaTeX, I use Sam Buss’ style file.

   I don’t know how that might be adapted to the nlab/Itex, though.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
   • CommentTimeApr 26th 2011
   • (edited Apr 26th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Andrew Stacey
   Format: MarkdownItexFor this, I'd recommend thinking what you want the end result to look like, figure out the MathML (and possibly CSS) needed to get it looking like that, then work out what iTeX commands are needed to produce it. Thus if `\frac` produces the correct MathML, use `\frac`. Edit: I took a quick look at the style file. There's a lot of box hackery going on in that file so it isn't _directly_ transportable to iTeX due to the differences between maths on the page and maths on the screen.

   For this, I’d recommend thinking what you want the end result to look like, figure out the MathML (and possibly CSS) needed to get it looking like that, then work out what iTeX commands are needed to produce it. Thus if \frac produces the correct MathML, use \frac.

   Edit: I took a quick look at the style file. There’s a lot of box hackery going on in that file so it isn’t directly transportable to iTeX due to the differences between maths on the page and maths on the screen.