# test

## Recommended Posts

\int_a^{\infty} f(x)dx=\lim_{L\to\infty}\int_a^{L}f(x)dx

##### Share on other sites

Did you mean this - I have removed the opening  square brackets from the first math tag and the trailing one from the second.

math]\int_a^\infty  f (x)dx = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{L \to \infty } \int_a^L f (x)dx[/math

$\int_a^\infty f (x)dx = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{L \to \infty } \int_a^L f (x)dx$

##### Share on other sites

I try with the "math" replaced by backslash square brackets:

$\int_a^\infty f (x)dx = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{L \to \infty } \int_a^L f (x)dx$

As expected the integral signs extend a little further.

Edited by taeto
##### Share on other sites

$\int_a^\infty f (x)dx = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{l \to \infty } \int_a^l f (x)dx$

$\mathcal{F}_{x} [\sin(2\pi k_0 x)](k) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-2\pi ikx} \left( \frac{e^{2\pi ik_{0}x} - e^{-2\pi ik_{0}x}}{2i} \right)\, dx$

got it for now....

Edited by Carrock
##### Share on other sites

I use an old version of MathType, which is a commercial program to generate the Math.

This allows me to type the maths in directly and copy / paste for the code in the webpage.

I see no reason to learn yet another language/convention but prefer to expect the machine to do the work for me.

Two free online alternatives are Sciweavers and Codecogs

##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

I see no reason to learn yet another language/convention but prefer to expect the machine to do the work for me.

I see reason. To become smarter..

I am always entering my LaTeX by hand using codes.

The more you're using it, the more comfortable you feel using it.

##### Share on other sites

On 19/08/2018 at 2:40 PM, studiot said:

I use an old version of MathType, which is a commercial program to generate the Math.

This allows me to type the maths in directly and copy / paste for the code in the webpage.

I see no reason to learn yet another language/convention but prefer to expect the machine to do the work for me.

Two free online alternatives are Sciweavers and Codecogs

Both of these look good, not only for scienceforums. I don't use latex much on this forum, which is why it always seems like a major task to get $or \( etc right. Like almost everyone who didn't write the software, I feel the recent 'upgrade' was in effect a downgrade. I use gummi a fast wysiwyg latex editor on my computer. Not windows friendly, but can be easily installed on e.g. most linux Ubuntu OS using Synaptic Package Manager. (I use Linux Mint.) Edited by Carrock Added last sentence. ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites 28 minutes ago, Carrock said: Both of these look good, not only for scienceforums. I don't use latex much on this forum, which is why it always seems like a major task to get [math] or \( etc right. Like almost everyone who didn't write the software, I feel the recent 'upgrade' was in effect a downgrade. I use gummi a fast wysiwyg latex editor on my computer. Not windows friendly, but can be easily installed on e.g. most linux Ubuntu OS using Synaptic Package Manager. (I use Linux Mint.) I see the programming industry as being in the same stage and displaying the same arrogance towards customers as Henry Ford with his "Any colour so long as it's black" comment. Growth and competition has yet to force them to actually find out what customers really want. ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites • 9 months later... \ Edited by Carrock ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites inline [math]\mathrm{[math]$}[/math] test

newline

$\displaystyle S = Nk \Bigg(\ln\bigg(\frac{V_x}{N}\Big(\frac{4 \pi mU}{3Nh^2}\Big)^\frac{3}{2}\bigg)+\frac{5}{2}\Bigg)$

newline

$\Delta S = Nk \ln (\frac{y}{x})$

$\displaystyle \Delta S = Nk \ln\big(\frac {y}{x}\big)$

Edited by Carrock
##### Share on other sites

On 8/22/2018 at 2:04 PM, studiot said:

I see the programming industry as being in the same stage and displaying the same arrogance towards customers as Henry Ford with his  "Any colour so long as it's black" comment. ﻿

That really depends on size of company... Corporations ("conglomerates", "city in the city", "state in the state") are reluctant to listen customers. Try to send e-mail or contact anybody in such "worldwide leader" IT company (I will refrain from mentioning names). Good luck. It's hard/impossible even to find such option on their websites. There is "contact" which opens page with FAQ, frequently asked questions, and you enter question to them, and algorithm is trying to search answer.. if it's not found, you're screwed.. I always have unusual uncommon nonstandard requests or suggestions.. and it's practically impossible to contact programmer and tell them "do this or that".. There is "wall of layman" at the lowest level of queue between customer->support (layman IT) -> management -> programmers.

Small companies almost always have properly working contact pages or even direct e-mails to everybody in the team. So it's possible to write them suggestions which really will be implemented.

On 8/22/2018 at 2:04 PM, studiot said:

Growth and competition has yet to force them to actually find out what customers really want. ﻿

That's growth caused them to start behaving like this. Imagine you have millions of customers and the all yours programmers in the team is dealing the all day long with thousands of users who request assistance etc. etc. They would be unable to work on their products in such environment. Not even mentioning HR from competitors who are trying to enlist..

Edited by Sensei
##### Share on other sites

Test of Mathpix Snipping Tool...

Select a partial screenshot, paste from clipboard....

From my last post here

S=N k\left(\ln \left(\frac{V_{x}}{N}\left(\frac{4 \pi m U}{3 N h^{2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)+\frac{5}{2}\right) ie.

$S=N k\left(\ln \left(\frac{V_{x}}{N}\left(\frac{4 \pi m U}{3 N h^{2}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)+\frac{5}{2}\right)$

From this image at   https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117535-probability-interpretation/

$\begin{array}{l}{P_{1}\left(E_{1}\right)=\left|\left\langle\phi_{1} | \psi\right\rangle\right|^{2}=\frac{3}{5}} \\ {P_{3}\left(E_{3}\right)=\left|\left\langle\phi_{1} | \psi\right\rangle\right|^{2}=\frac{3}{10}}\end{array}$ and

$\begin{array}{l}{\text { Why not }} \\ {P_{1}\left(E_{1}\right)=\left|\left\langle\phi_{1} | \phi_{1}\right\rangle\right|^{2}=?}\end{array}$

Edited by Carrock
missin [/math]
##### Share on other sites

This is a link to test

Edited by Strange

## Create an account

Register a new account