problem with inline use of \lim

problem with inline use of \lim

[M.J. Kallen]

Hi all,

this may have been mentioned before, but I haven't been able to find an answer to this: if I e.g. use $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} f(t)$, the subscript of \lim appears underneath it, i.e. in displaystyle. In LaTeX, it appears below right of \lim, much like with $\sum_{i=1}$. The latter behaviour is of course preferred. 

I use ConTeXt version 2006.08.08, is this bug/feature know and has it possibly been fixed up to now?

Regards,

Maarten-Jan




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. 
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html 

Re: problem with inline use of \lim

[Aditya Mahajan]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, M.J. Kallen wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> this may have been mentioned before, but I haven't been able to find 
> an answer to this: if I e.g. use $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} f(t)$, 
> the subscript of \lim appears underneath it, i.e. in displaystyle. 
> In LaTeX, it appears below right of \lim, much like with 
> $\sum_{i=1}$. The latter behaviour is of course preferred.

This is a bug.

> I use ConTeXt version 2006.08.08, is this bug/feature know and has it possibly been fixed up to now?

No, it has not been fixed, since nobody noticed it before (we need 
more people doing math use ConTeXt :). As a quick work around add the 
following on top of your source file.

\def\mathlimopcomm#1{\mathop{#1}}

Hans, the definition of \@@mathlimopcomm should be corrected in 
math-ini.tex

\def\@@mathlimopcomm#1{\mathop{#1}} %no \limits

Aditya

Re: problem with inline use of \lim

[Taco Hoekwater]

Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, M.J. Kallen wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hi all,
>>
>>this may have been mentioned before, but I haven't been able to find 
>>an answer to this: if I e.g. use $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} f(t)$, 
>>the subscript of \lim appears underneath it, i.e. in displaystyle. 
>>In LaTeX, it appears below right of \lim, much like with 
>>$\sum_{i=1}$. The latter behaviour is of course preferred.
> 
> 
> This is a bug.
> 
> 
>>I use ConTeXt version 2006.08.08, is this bug/feature know and has it possibly been fixed up to now?
> 
> 
> No, it has not been fixed, since nobody noticed it before (we need 
> more people doing math use ConTeXt :). As a quick work around add the 
> following on top of your source file.
> 
> \def\mathlimopcomm#1{\mathop{#1}}
> 
> Hans, the definition of \@@mathlimopcomm should be corrected in 
> math-ini.tex
> 
> \def\@@mathlimopcomm#1{\mathop{#1}} %no \limits

Are you sure? How about:

    \def\@@mathlimopcomm#1{\mathop{#1}\displaylimits}


Best, Taco

Re: problem with inline use of \lim

[Aditya Mahajan]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Taco Hoekwater wrote:

> Aditya Mahajan wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, M.J. Kallen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this may have been mentioned before, but I haven't been able to find
>>> an answer to this: if I e.g. use $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty} f(t)$,
>>> the subscript of \lim appears underneath it, i.e. in displaystyle.
>>> In LaTeX, it appears below right of \lim, much like with
>>> $\sum_{i=1}$. The latter behaviour is of course preferred.
>>
>>
>> This is a bug.
>>
>>
>>> I use ConTeXt version 2006.08.08, is this bug/feature know and has it possibly been fixed up to now?
>>
>>
>> No, it has not been fixed, since nobody noticed it before (we need
>> more people doing math use ConTeXt :). As a quick work around add the
>> following on top of your source file.
>>
>> \def\mathlimopcomm#1{\mathop{#1}}
>>
>> Hans, the definition of \@@mathlimopcomm should be corrected in
>> math-ini.tex
>>
>> \def\@@mathlimopcomm#1{\mathop{#1}} %no \limits
>
> Are you sure?

Well, for the previous reply, I just looked at the difference between 
LaTeX and ConTeXt's definitions.

> How about:
>    \def\@@mathlimopcomm#1{\mathop{#1}\displaylimits}
>

I checked up with the TeXbook and both should be equivalent. Quoting 
from the TeXbook

* double bend at the end of page 144

If you say \nolimits\limits (presumably because some macro like 
\int specifies \nolimits, but you do want them), the last word takes 
precedence. There’s also a command \displaylimits that can be 
used to restore TEX's normal conventions; i.e., the limits will be 
displayed only in styles D and D'.

* page 292 (summary of math mode)

\displaylimits, \limits, \nolimits. These commands are allowed only if 
the current list ends with an Op atom. They modify a special field in 
that Op atom, specifying what conventions should be used with respect 
to limits. The normal value of that field is \displaylimits.

So, if I understand correctly, there is no difference between 
\mathop{...} and \mathop{...}\displaylimits.

Aditya

Re: problem with inline use of \lim

[Taco Hoekwater]

Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> So, if I understand correctly, there is no difference between 
> \mathop{...} and \mathop{...}\displaylimits.

Yes. /me was definately wrong

Cheers,
Taco