Help talk:Displaying a formula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project  
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 ???  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

higher resolution?[edit]

Is it possible to specify the resolution or the amount of detail used in the images produced by the math tag? The images have always been a little rough, but now that I'm using a new computer with a Retina display, the roughness is even more noticeable. Maybe even two images could be produced from these tags, one for the common resolution displays and one for higher definition displays. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried switching to MathJax?. The setting's at the end of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. It uses text rather than bitmaps to render text so should work better on a Retina display. Given that solution has been (recently) added I don't see anything being done to the bitmap rendering. Work on that seemed to come to a halt a while ago: even before Retina displays there were issues with rendering quality. What you describe is probably feasible but now MathJax is here I don't see anyone doing much with the older bitmap code.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
MathJax is unreadable compared to Latex. I'd very like too to see Latex renderred with 2x resolution. Sheerun (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree. It's like it was typeset in Word from the '90s. Ug! Of course, if it gets used, people will make it better, and it looks like their output is better; I don't know how to turn that on on Wikipedia. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I really don't get this criticism. The MathJax rendering looks fine to me, and always superior to that from texvc.
MathJax rendering of part of help formula using google chrome on a mac, some bluring of image due to upload process PNG/Texvc rendering of help formula, google chrome on a mac
MathJax rendering of part of help formula using google chrome on a mac, some bluring of image due to upload process TexVC rendering of help formula, google chrome on a mac
In the above side by side rendering there is not much difference. In the PNG rendering there are some aliasing effects on the brackets whilst the MathJax looks a lot smoother. The superscript on the b is a little higher in MathJax and the texvc font size is larger. I would say there is slightly too much space at the bottom of the brackets.
Are you seeing these sort of renderings or does it look worse? It might be a browser/font issue as MathJax uses the fonts you have installed on the local machine.--Salix alba (talk): 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, MathJax uses Computer Modern (TeX) webfonts by default, unless you have local STIX fonts installed. Edokter (talk) — 20:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that users who are negative about MathJax, are Windows/IE users. Font and typesetting in IE quickly turns dreadful, especially if you have disabled anti aliasing/cleartype. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 22:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
While at a previous employer I worked on a solution converting LaTeX formulas into ultra-high-res PNGs (if I recall in the 1400-7200 DPI range) to be traced into SVGs for use in PDF documents generated by Apache FOP. The results we I got were beautiful even zoomed in beyond the original render resolution, and the SVGs weren't particularly large, but since FOP choked on large numbers of SVGs we discarded the solution. With Wikimedia's pervasive adoption of SVGs, I feel this would work very well here. Contact me if I can assist in implementing a similar strategy here. -Thanks Loren Osborn (talk) — 18:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

MathJax as header[edit]

@Salix alba: The heading === MathJaX === creates an element with id MathJax this breaks mathjax see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63915 --Physikerwelt (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Including on this page. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hidden colors[edit]

[1]

I just undid myself, discovering that colors would show up when they were never programed too. This could be a bug, so I leave it to those more knowledgeable to post on Bugzilla.174.3.125.23 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Lots about TeX, but where do I learn about HTML?[edit]

I think I would like to use the HTML rendering in a new article I'm writing. This is the only article I can find on the topic of math on the wiki, at least using Google. Is there another article like this one about how to use the HTML rendering? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps {{math}} will give some pointers. But other than that, there is no 'real' HTML math tutorial; it is only intended for very simple formulae that can be made with simple HTML. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Its a bit messy there is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Using HTML, Wikipedia:Rendering_math and List of mathematical symbols. --Salix alba (talk): 16:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Using the \mathscr mathematical font on wikipedia[edit]

I'm not sure this is the right place to ask. If not, please point me where it is. Is there a way to use the \mathscr font on wikipedia (see e.g. here)? Ggf4t (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that font is not installed in our math renderers (TeX or MathJax). See § Alphabets and typefaces to see the available typefaces. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Is that due to a lack of support by MathJax then? Or is there some particular reason this font has not been installed on wikipedia? Ggf4t (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It doens't seem to be part of the deafult font sets, Computer Modern or STIX Fonts. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Consistent format in this help page[edit]

I am looking at this page with critical eyes- which one can do as it is very good. I have discovered some unusual markup- it is the first time I have encountered

=text= rather than ==text== for a section heading- can anyone explain?
The lead did not follow MOS- being far too technical and not a summary of the contents. I have fixed that using {{efn-s
In the TEX example tables- (after the matrices examples) the text suddenly changes from black to red- is there some logic there, or a random bug, or should it all have been wrapped in a source lang=Latex tag?

I am using Firefox on Mint 17.1. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Um, about the strange section heading markup—didn't you do that here? CabbagePotato (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@ClemRutter: After looking over your edits again, I think I understand now what you were trying to do (the ordering looked correct in the TOC, but the last headers were still article-title-sized headers). I've edited the headers and they should be all right now, but you (or someone else) might want to double-check my edits to make sure I haven't messed up anything else in the process. (Hope I'm not annoying you with these multiple pings.) CabbagePotato (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@CabbagePotato: It seems to be working- and the markup is less surprising.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I seem to remember struggling with <source lang="Latex"> in previous revisions of this page. It works most of the time but something it didn't work well at all. Something as simple as \frac{2}{4} fails to get consistent colouring for the brackets. You can fake nice results by splitting it into two source tags. \frac{2}{4}--Salix alba (talk): 10:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of which... On reading the help page just now I couldn't help noticing that some of the table text is black, while some is in a variety of colours, sometimes changing back and forth within the same table. I came here to make a plea for consistency. (I was going to ask if there was a reason for the inconsistency, but if "struggling" is required to make it work, that may have answered my question...) Personally, I'm not sure the different colours are very helpful, especially if they don't always come out correctly - but someone else can decide that; I'm just a random IP editor who may never come back here. :) 78.146.215.183 (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Background-color[edit]

We have had a bit of a debate about colour here. But shouldn't we give the user access to the code as we do every where else. I am unhappy about including css so early into the article- but unhappy in not leaving the code for the reader. Background colour is on focus but we shouldn't be giving it undue. Code used in the rest of the article suggests that for consistency we should do this:

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin:1em 0 1em 1em;"
| <math>e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0\,\!</math>
| style="background-color:olive;" | <math>e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0\,\!</math>
| style="background-color:olive;" | <math>\definecolor{olive}{RGB}{128,128,0}
 \pagecolor{olive}e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0\,\!</math>    
|}
e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0\,\! e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0\,\! \definecolor{olive}{RGB}{128,128,0}
 \pagecolor{olive}e^{i \pi} + 1 = 0\,\!

But should the paragraph be move- stay here with this rewrite or may be be put in an efn. Comments please.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)