Template talk:Selected Recent Additions

Yes, I'm aware a lot of new sequences are currently being assigned recycled A-numbers like A182434. Alonso del Arte 19:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A kludge to simulate a caret in LaTeX

<math>a \wedge b \,</math> yields

$a\wedge b\,$

where \wedge stands for the AND logic operator; now

<math>a ^{\wedge} b \,</math> yields

$a^{\wedge }b\,$

where ^{\wedge} is used as a kludge to simulate a caret in LaTeX (\wedge used as superscript pretty much looks like a caret, though it isn't!)

If anyone knows a better way to simulate a caret(\^ doesn't work in the LaTeX environment of OEIS Wiki), I'd like to know! — Daniel Forgues 01:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I found better: this kludge

<math>a {\scriptstyle ^{\wedge}} b \,</math> yields

$a{\scriptstyle ^{\wedge }}b\,$

simulates a caret much better! — Daniel Forgues 02:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Googling the question yields many options, but the reduced command set here does not allow much more than what proceeds and \hat~ : $a{\hat {~}}b\,$. — M. F. Hasler 07:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I should have found this \hat LaTeX command, had I searched better! Thanks for the information. (And I will refrain from doing those ugly hacks.) — Daniel Forgues 03:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

​ <math>n</math> ​

Now, I've set up my user preferences to always render LateX in PNGs, problem is, it always render in default \displaystyle which is too big in inline style where it should be \scriptstyle as in ​ <math>\scriptstyle n</math> ​ but this forces rendering into PNGs (because of the LaTeX command) and bypasses the user preferences. What to do...? — Daniel Forgues 04:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe we should override user preferences again, though I really don't like that -- I know people who strongly prefer options other than PNG. Maybe we should do nothing: some people prefer the extra-large displaystyle even inline. Maybe we can try to minimize the number of times we write formulas inline, preferring text or block formulas when possible. What do you think?

I don't have a great solution here.

Charles R Greathouse IV 15:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the wiki pages look sleeker when all LaTeX is rendered into PNGs. For inline LaTeX, using ​ \scriptstyle ​ gives about the right font size (although the alignment is hit and miss, since it seems to align the vertical center of the PNG with the baseline, so that subscripts/superscripts/descendants/ascendants messes things up; also the font typeface used for PNGs is not the same as the CSS/HTML typeface, which is OK for display style but not so much for inline style) and for display LaTeX, the default ​ \displaystyle ​ is perfect. Using ​ <math>n</math> ​ (giving $n$) has no LaTeX command and is not rendered as PNG but as CSS/HTML in inline style (with the "HTML if very simple or else PNG" option in User_Preferences/Math) and thus doesn't have the same appearance as ​ <math>\sqrt{n}</math> ​ (giving ${\sqrt {n}}$) which renders as PNG because of the LaTeX command (and in default \displaystyle instead of \scriptstyle which is too big for inline). This is why I used the \, hack (LaTeX command for a comma space) throughout, so that the LaTeX command forces the PNG rendering for consistency (and with ​ \scriptstyle ​ for inline LaTeX to override the default \displaystyle, e.g. ​ <math>\scriptstyle n \,</math> ​ giving $\scriptstyle n\,$). I think this gives the sleekest look for now...

...until we (possibly, depending on whether David Applegate and Neil Sloane think this might be better than rendering into PNGs, and then after some testing to evaluate the quality of CSS/HTML rendering, then how acceptable/unacceptable is the Flash Of Unstyled Content issue and then how fast/slow are the page downloads...) use MathJax... And with MathJax the user has the choice of rendering in either CSS/HTML, MathML or SVG.

See also Talk:Features Wishlist#Using LaTeX throughout to get consistent rendering of mathematical content (rendered as PNGs, that is).

— Daniel Forgues 07:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I definitely think that one should not "pollute" the contents with such "hacks", that's a problem which must be fixed globally and otherwise than using duplication of \, and \scriptstype or even worse... (Would "zooming in (resp. out)" text (resp. images) work in your browser?) — M. F. Hasler 07:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)