1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
|
<head>
<title>UK TeX FAQ -- question label limits</title>
</head><body>
<h3>Sub- and superscript positioning for operators</h3>
<p>The commonest hand-written style for expressions is to place the limit
expressions on operators such as <code>\</code><code>sum</code> and <code>\</code><code>int</code> physically
above and below the operator. In (La)TeX, we write these limit
expressions using sub- and superscripts applied to the operator, but
they don't always appear in the "handwritten" way in TeX's
output.
<p>The reason is, that when an expression appears in non-display maths,
in running text (and is therefore in TeX <code>\</code><code>textstyle</code>), placing
the limits thus could lead to ragged line spacing (and hence
difficult-to-read text). It is therefore common (in <code>\</code><code>textstyle</code>)
to place the limits as one would sub- and superscripts of variables.
<p>This is not universally satisfactory, so the primitive <code>\</code><code>limits</code> is
provided:
<pre>
$\sum\limits_{n=1}^{m} ...$
</pre>
which will place the limits right above and below the symbol (and be
blowed to the typography...).
<p>Contrariwise, you may wish to change the arrangement of the limits
when in <code>\</code><code>displaystyle</code>. For this purpose, there's a corresponding
<code>\</code><code>nolimits</code>:
<pre>
\[\sum\nolimits_{n=1}^{m} ...\]
</pre>
which will place the limits as they would be in <code>\</code><code>textstyle</code>.
<p>(Note that the macro <code>\</code><code>int</code> normally has <code>\</code><code>nolimits</code> built in to
its definition. There is an example in the TeXbook to show how odd
<code>\</code><code>int</code><code>\</code><code>limits</code> looks when typeset.)
<p><p>This question on the Web: <a href="http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=limits">http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=limits</a>
</body>
|
