Shorten fraction line
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
I understand that this request may sound stupid, but my eyes are just bleeding when I see how $frac{x^-}{2}$
is rendered:
I'm wondering if there's a moderately simple way to make it look like this?
(Please do not suggest $frac{x^-}{2^{phantom{-}}}$
or $frac{{}^{phantom{-}}x^-}{2}$
.)
UPDATE
Well, OK, I've realized that frac{x}{2}^{-}
may work as a temporary solution, but now my eyes are bleeding when looking at the source code.
fractions
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
I understand that this request may sound stupid, but my eyes are just bleeding when I see how $frac{x^-}{2}$
is rendered:
I'm wondering if there's a moderately simple way to make it look like this?
(Please do not suggest $frac{x^-}{2^{phantom{-}}}$
or $frac{{}^{phantom{-}}x^-}{2}$
.)
UPDATE
Well, OK, I've realized that frac{x}{2}^{-}
may work as a temporary solution, but now my eyes are bleeding when looking at the source code.
fractions
1
How aboutfrac{x^{mathmakebox[0pt][l]{-}}}{2}
withmathtools
?
– marmot
Nov 30 at 4:28
Cool, thanks. What exactly is happening here?
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30
(Even though, it would be preferable to ensure that minus does not stay above the following symbols.)
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30
3
Maybe the result offrac{x^{-}}{2}
is not that pretty, but the proposed layout is much worse to my eyes.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 11:31
Not only your eyes are bleeding when you look at the code$frac{x}{2}^{-}$
, it gives undesired output in non-display mathmode, especially if the denominator is not a single character, as in$frac{x}{222}^{-}$
. Putting two~
in front ofx
does a reasonable job, no matter what the denominator is, as in$displaystyle frac{~~x^{-}}{2}$
– Máté Wierdl
Dec 5 at 4:26
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
I understand that this request may sound stupid, but my eyes are just bleeding when I see how $frac{x^-}{2}$
is rendered:
I'm wondering if there's a moderately simple way to make it look like this?
(Please do not suggest $frac{x^-}{2^{phantom{-}}}$
or $frac{{}^{phantom{-}}x^-}{2}$
.)
UPDATE
Well, OK, I've realized that frac{x}{2}^{-}
may work as a temporary solution, but now my eyes are bleeding when looking at the source code.
fractions
I understand that this request may sound stupid, but my eyes are just bleeding when I see how $frac{x^-}{2}$
is rendered:
I'm wondering if there's a moderately simple way to make it look like this?
(Please do not suggest $frac{x^-}{2^{phantom{-}}}$
or $frac{{}^{phantom{-}}x^-}{2}$
.)
UPDATE
Well, OK, I've realized that frac{x}{2}^{-}
may work as a temporary solution, but now my eyes are bleeding when looking at the source code.
fractions
fractions
edited Nov 30 at 18:05
asked Nov 30 at 4:25
mavzolej
1585
1585
1
How aboutfrac{x^{mathmakebox[0pt][l]{-}}}{2}
withmathtools
?
– marmot
Nov 30 at 4:28
Cool, thanks. What exactly is happening here?
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30
(Even though, it would be preferable to ensure that minus does not stay above the following symbols.)
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30
3
Maybe the result offrac{x^{-}}{2}
is not that pretty, but the proposed layout is much worse to my eyes.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 11:31
Not only your eyes are bleeding when you look at the code$frac{x}{2}^{-}$
, it gives undesired output in non-display mathmode, especially if the denominator is not a single character, as in$frac{x}{222}^{-}$
. Putting two~
in front ofx
does a reasonable job, no matter what the denominator is, as in$displaystyle frac{~~x^{-}}{2}$
– Máté Wierdl
Dec 5 at 4:26
add a comment |
1
How aboutfrac{x^{mathmakebox[0pt][l]{-}}}{2}
withmathtools
?
– marmot
Nov 30 at 4:28
Cool, thanks. What exactly is happening here?
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30
(Even though, it would be preferable to ensure that minus does not stay above the following symbols.)
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30
3
Maybe the result offrac{x^{-}}{2}
is not that pretty, but the proposed layout is much worse to my eyes.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 11:31
Not only your eyes are bleeding when you look at the code$frac{x}{2}^{-}$
, it gives undesired output in non-display mathmode, especially if the denominator is not a single character, as in$frac{x}{222}^{-}$
. Putting two~
in front ofx
does a reasonable job, no matter what the denominator is, as in$displaystyle frac{~~x^{-}}{2}$
– Máté Wierdl
Dec 5 at 4:26
1
1
How about
frac{x^{mathmakebox[0pt][l]{-}}}{2}
with mathtools
?– marmot
Nov 30 at 4:28
How about
frac{x^{mathmakebox[0pt][l]{-}}}{2}
with mathtools
?– marmot
Nov 30 at 4:28
Cool, thanks. What exactly is happening here?
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30
Cool, thanks. What exactly is happening here?
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30
(Even though, it would be preferable to ensure that minus does not stay above the following symbols.)
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30
(Even though, it would be preferable to ensure that minus does not stay above the following symbols.)
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30
3
3
Maybe the result of
frac{x^{-}}{2}
is not that pretty, but the proposed layout is much worse to my eyes.– egreg
Nov 30 at 11:31
Maybe the result of
frac{x^{-}}{2}
is not that pretty, but the proposed layout is much worse to my eyes.– egreg
Nov 30 at 11:31
Not only your eyes are bleeding when you look at the code
$frac{x}{2}^{-}$
, it gives undesired output in non-display mathmode, especially if the denominator is not a single character, as in $frac{x}{222}^{-}$
. Putting two ~
in front of x
does a reasonable job, no matter what the denominator is, as in $displaystyle frac{~~x^{-}}{2}$
– Máté Wierdl
Dec 5 at 4:26
Not only your eyes are bleeding when you look at the code
$frac{x}{2}^{-}$
, it gives undesired output in non-display mathmode, especially if the denominator is not a single character, as in $frac{x}{222}^{-}$
. Putting two ~
in front of x
does a reasonable job, no matter what the denominator is, as in $displaystyle frac{~~x^{-}}{2}$
– Máté Wierdl
Dec 5 at 4:26
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
My eyes bleed with your proposal. Anyway
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
makeatletter
newcommand{fracto}[3]{%
{mathpalettefrac@to{{#1}{#2}{#3}}}%
}
newcommand{frac@to}[2]{frac@@to#1#2}
newcommand{frac@@to}[4]{%
% #1 = mathstyle
% #2 = full numerator
% #3 = denominator
% #4 = reduced numerator
begingroup
sboxz@{$m@th#1frac{#2}{#3}$}%
sboxtw@{$m@th#1frac{#4}{#3}$}%
settowidthdimen@{$m@thfrac@to@demote#1#4$}%
frac{{}makebox[dimen@][l]{$frac@to@demote#1#2$}}{#3}%
kern-wdtw@
kernwdz@
endgroup
}
newcommandfrac@to@demote[1]{%
ifx#1displaystyletextstyleelse
ifx#1textstylescriptstyleelse
scriptscriptstylefifi
}
makeatother
begin{document}
begin{gather*}
X + frac{x^{-}}{2} + frac{x^{-}}{100} + X \
X + fracto{x^{-}}{2}{x} + fracto{x^{-}}{100}{x} + X \
end{gather*}
end{document}
First I typeset the standard fraction, then the same but with the “reduced numerator” in two boxes, so I can use their widths. I also measure the reduced numerator.
Then I typeset the fraction with the numerator having the same width as the reduced one (aligned left). This fraction is as wide as box 2, so I back up by this amount and reinstate the width of the standard fraction, which is the width of box 0.
Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 18:03
@mavzolej Added short explanation.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 18:16
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
I'll be happy to remove this but you could do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{mathtools}
begin{document}
[frac{x^{mathrlap{-}}}{2}hphantom{scriptstyle -}x]
end{document}
Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:37
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
My eyes bleed with your proposal. Anyway
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
makeatletter
newcommand{fracto}[3]{%
{mathpalettefrac@to{{#1}{#2}{#3}}}%
}
newcommand{frac@to}[2]{frac@@to#1#2}
newcommand{frac@@to}[4]{%
% #1 = mathstyle
% #2 = full numerator
% #3 = denominator
% #4 = reduced numerator
begingroup
sboxz@{$m@th#1frac{#2}{#3}$}%
sboxtw@{$m@th#1frac{#4}{#3}$}%
settowidthdimen@{$m@thfrac@to@demote#1#4$}%
frac{{}makebox[dimen@][l]{$frac@to@demote#1#2$}}{#3}%
kern-wdtw@
kernwdz@
endgroup
}
newcommandfrac@to@demote[1]{%
ifx#1displaystyletextstyleelse
ifx#1textstylescriptstyleelse
scriptscriptstylefifi
}
makeatother
begin{document}
begin{gather*}
X + frac{x^{-}}{2} + frac{x^{-}}{100} + X \
X + fracto{x^{-}}{2}{x} + fracto{x^{-}}{100}{x} + X \
end{gather*}
end{document}
First I typeset the standard fraction, then the same but with the “reduced numerator” in two boxes, so I can use their widths. I also measure the reduced numerator.
Then I typeset the fraction with the numerator having the same width as the reduced one (aligned left). This fraction is as wide as box 2, so I back up by this amount and reinstate the width of the standard fraction, which is the width of box 0.
Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 18:03
@mavzolej Added short explanation.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 18:16
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
My eyes bleed with your proposal. Anyway
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
makeatletter
newcommand{fracto}[3]{%
{mathpalettefrac@to{{#1}{#2}{#3}}}%
}
newcommand{frac@to}[2]{frac@@to#1#2}
newcommand{frac@@to}[4]{%
% #1 = mathstyle
% #2 = full numerator
% #3 = denominator
% #4 = reduced numerator
begingroup
sboxz@{$m@th#1frac{#2}{#3}$}%
sboxtw@{$m@th#1frac{#4}{#3}$}%
settowidthdimen@{$m@thfrac@to@demote#1#4$}%
frac{{}makebox[dimen@][l]{$frac@to@demote#1#2$}}{#3}%
kern-wdtw@
kernwdz@
endgroup
}
newcommandfrac@to@demote[1]{%
ifx#1displaystyletextstyleelse
ifx#1textstylescriptstyleelse
scriptscriptstylefifi
}
makeatother
begin{document}
begin{gather*}
X + frac{x^{-}}{2} + frac{x^{-}}{100} + X \
X + fracto{x^{-}}{2}{x} + fracto{x^{-}}{100}{x} + X \
end{gather*}
end{document}
First I typeset the standard fraction, then the same but with the “reduced numerator” in two boxes, so I can use their widths. I also measure the reduced numerator.
Then I typeset the fraction with the numerator having the same width as the reduced one (aligned left). This fraction is as wide as box 2, so I back up by this amount and reinstate the width of the standard fraction, which is the width of box 0.
Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 18:03
@mavzolej Added short explanation.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 18:16
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
My eyes bleed with your proposal. Anyway
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
makeatletter
newcommand{fracto}[3]{%
{mathpalettefrac@to{{#1}{#2}{#3}}}%
}
newcommand{frac@to}[2]{frac@@to#1#2}
newcommand{frac@@to}[4]{%
% #1 = mathstyle
% #2 = full numerator
% #3 = denominator
% #4 = reduced numerator
begingroup
sboxz@{$m@th#1frac{#2}{#3}$}%
sboxtw@{$m@th#1frac{#4}{#3}$}%
settowidthdimen@{$m@thfrac@to@demote#1#4$}%
frac{{}makebox[dimen@][l]{$frac@to@demote#1#2$}}{#3}%
kern-wdtw@
kernwdz@
endgroup
}
newcommandfrac@to@demote[1]{%
ifx#1displaystyletextstyleelse
ifx#1textstylescriptstyleelse
scriptscriptstylefifi
}
makeatother
begin{document}
begin{gather*}
X + frac{x^{-}}{2} + frac{x^{-}}{100} + X \
X + fracto{x^{-}}{2}{x} + fracto{x^{-}}{100}{x} + X \
end{gather*}
end{document}
First I typeset the standard fraction, then the same but with the “reduced numerator” in two boxes, so I can use their widths. I also measure the reduced numerator.
Then I typeset the fraction with the numerator having the same width as the reduced one (aligned left). This fraction is as wide as box 2, so I back up by this amount and reinstate the width of the standard fraction, which is the width of box 0.
My eyes bleed with your proposal. Anyway
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
makeatletter
newcommand{fracto}[3]{%
{mathpalettefrac@to{{#1}{#2}{#3}}}%
}
newcommand{frac@to}[2]{frac@@to#1#2}
newcommand{frac@@to}[4]{%
% #1 = mathstyle
% #2 = full numerator
% #3 = denominator
% #4 = reduced numerator
begingroup
sboxz@{$m@th#1frac{#2}{#3}$}%
sboxtw@{$m@th#1frac{#4}{#3}$}%
settowidthdimen@{$m@thfrac@to@demote#1#4$}%
frac{{}makebox[dimen@][l]{$frac@to@demote#1#2$}}{#3}%
kern-wdtw@
kernwdz@
endgroup
}
newcommandfrac@to@demote[1]{%
ifx#1displaystyletextstyleelse
ifx#1textstylescriptstyleelse
scriptscriptstylefifi
}
makeatother
begin{document}
begin{gather*}
X + frac{x^{-}}{2} + frac{x^{-}}{100} + X \
X + fracto{x^{-}}{2}{x} + fracto{x^{-}}{100}{x} + X \
end{gather*}
end{document}
First I typeset the standard fraction, then the same but with the “reduced numerator” in two boxes, so I can use their widths. I also measure the reduced numerator.
Then I typeset the fraction with the numerator having the same width as the reduced one (aligned left). This fraction is as wide as box 2, so I back up by this amount and reinstate the width of the standard fraction, which is the width of box 0.
edited Nov 30 at 18:15
answered Nov 30 at 11:58
egreg
703k8618743151
703k8618743151
Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 18:03
@mavzolej Added short explanation.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 18:16
add a comment |
Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 18:03
@mavzolej Added short explanation.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 18:16
Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 18:03
Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 18:03
@mavzolej Added short explanation.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 18:16
@mavzolej Added short explanation.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 18:16
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
I'll be happy to remove this but you could do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{mathtools}
begin{document}
[frac{x^{mathrlap{-}}}{2}hphantom{scriptstyle -}x]
end{document}
Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:37
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
I'll be happy to remove this but you could do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{mathtools}
begin{document}
[frac{x^{mathrlap{-}}}{2}hphantom{scriptstyle -}x]
end{document}
Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:37
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
up vote
12
down vote
I'll be happy to remove this but you could do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{mathtools}
begin{document}
[frac{x^{mathrlap{-}}}{2}hphantom{scriptstyle -}x]
end{document}
I'll be happy to remove this but you could do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{mathtools}
begin{document}
[frac{x^{mathrlap{-}}}{2}hphantom{scriptstyle -}x]
end{document}
answered Nov 30 at 4:32
marmot
81.8k491174
81.8k491174
Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:37
add a comment |
Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:37
Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:37
Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:37
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f462509%2fshorten-fraction-line%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
How about
frac{x^{mathmakebox[0pt][l]{-}}}{2}
withmathtools
?– marmot
Nov 30 at 4:28
Cool, thanks. What exactly is happening here?
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30
(Even though, it would be preferable to ensure that minus does not stay above the following symbols.)
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30
3
Maybe the result of
frac{x^{-}}{2}
is not that pretty, but the proposed layout is much worse to my eyes.– egreg
Nov 30 at 11:31
Not only your eyes are bleeding when you look at the code
$frac{x}{2}^{-}$
, it gives undesired output in non-display mathmode, especially if the denominator is not a single character, as in$frac{x}{222}^{-}$
. Putting two~
in front ofx
does a reasonable job, no matter what the denominator is, as in$displaystyle frac{~~x^{-}}{2}$
– Máté Wierdl
Dec 5 at 4:26