Question

Please ignore. Just trying to learn new tricks.
\(hello\)

Answer 1

\(\huge{Sizes~of~Text}\)
\(\huge{huge}\)
\(\large{large}\)
\({normal}\)
\(\small{small}\)

Answer 2

Ignore.... ignore... hmmm... WAIT! That is what they wanted here:
http://openstudy.com/study#/updates/51bfbe66e4b0bb0a435f9556

And they forgot to close it... and guess what happened?

Answer 3

Be sure to ignore this \(\LaTeX\) post... ahem...
@JA1 @uri @thomaster @SnuggieLad

Answer 4

@e.mccormick ok

Answer 5

Oh sure, I am glad you tagged me in the post I am supposed to ignore xD

Answer 6

Well, I wanted to make sure everyone knew it was here to be ignored.

Answer 7

Be nice, @mathstudent55 is my friend :3

Answer 8

lol @e.mccormick I know but I would of ignored it anyways since i don't come here often

Answer 9

Yah, he is a great guy... which is why I could not ignore his question... even thought it is not really a question. And I thought all of us could not ignore it together to better help him with \(\LaTeX\).

Answer 10

\[x^6 + x ^4 - 6 = 0\]

Answer 11

\[\frac {x^2 + 2x - 6}{x - 1}\]

Answer 12

http://openstudy.com/study#/updates/515f3e09e4b0115bc14d4e65

Answer 13

Anther great tool to test \(\LaTeX\) with is:
http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

However, they support a slighly larger set than here. So some things that work there will not work here. On the other hand, it tends to be less laggy and has a nice editor interface for all the commands you forget due to not using them.

Answer 14

Thanks

Answer 15

Like this thing:\[\begin{cases}
x+1 & \text{ if } x= 0\\
e^{x-1} & \text{ if } x<0\\
e^{-x} & \text{ if } x>0
\end{cases}\]How ofthem would that be needed? Not much.... but the CodeCogs editor let me do it pretty quick.

Answer 16

Wow. I'll have to practice there. Thanks again.

Answer 17

My head hurts, do I ignore it or not ignore it D:

Answer 18

@JA1*GOES CLOSER TO JA* WHAAAT IS YOURRRRRRRR FIRSTTTT LANGUAGEEEEEEEEEE?

Answer 19

O.o English....

Answer 20

I think he was tryng to make your head hurt more.

Answer 21

probably lol

Answer 22

@JA1 give me a medal plzzz.

Answer 23

For making my head hurt :(

Answer 24

For being k3wlxx.

Answer 25

:P

Answer 26

I love youu JA <3

Answer 27

Oh, sure... I point out a real way to work with \(\LaTeX\) and uri gets the medal. LOL

Answer 28

Oh it's all because of LOVE :3

Answer 29

I just used this in a problem I was helping someone with.
\( ( \frac{x_1 + x_2}{2}, \frac{y_1 + y_2}{2}) \)
( \frac{x_1 + x_2}{2}, \frac{y_1 + y_2}{2})
How do I make it larger, so it's easier to see?

Answer 30

t = text-style, d = display-style
\cfrac or \dfrac rathet than frac, also, there is \tfrac for making sure it is smaller, so if you want to force small at times...:


Inline \frac \(\left( \frac{x_1 + x_2}{2}, \frac{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right) \)
Inline \cfrac \(\left( \cfrac{x_1 + x_2}{2}, \cfrac{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right) \)
Inline \tfrac \(\left( \tfrac{x_1 + x_2}{2}, \tfrac{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right) \)
Inline \dfrac \(\left( \dfrac{x_1 + x_2}{2}, \dfrac{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right) \)

Also, for left/right you can use \cfrac[l]{}{} or \cfrac[r]{}{}

Inline \cfrac[l] \(\left( \cfrac[l]{x_1 + x_2}{2}, \cfrac[l]{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right) \)
Inline \cfrac[r] \(\left( \cfrac[r]{x_1 + x_2}{2}, \cfrac[r]{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right) \)

Answer 31

The \tfrac could some in handy if you were doing a matrix and you had things like \(\tfrac{1}{2}\) and so on in it, and you wanted to amke sure they did not become huge.
\[\text{Using \frac }\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{2} & 12\\
\frac{7}{2} & 8
\end{bmatrix}
\text{vs. using \tfrac }
\begin{bmatrix}
\tfrac{1}{2} & 12\\
\tfrac{7}{2} & 8
\end{bmatrix}
\]

Answer 32

@e.mccormick
Wow, what a great explanation. Thanks.

Answer 33

np. Just ignore the lysdexic parts and it is even readable!

Answer 34

LOL. Thanks again.

Answer 35

Here is an example without the \dfrac \trfrac, then with them. Note that without, the spacing changes between stand alone and inline. But with them, I can have both the stand alone and inline match up.

Stand alone: \(\text{\[}\)\left( \frac{\frac{x_1}{ x_2}}{2}, \frac{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right)\(\text{\]}\)
\[\left( \frac{\frac{x_1}{ x_2}}{2}, \frac{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right) \]

Inline: \(\backslash\text{(}\)\left( \frac{\frac{x_1}{ x_2}}{2}, \frac{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right)\(\backslash\text{)}\)
\(\left( \frac{\frac{x_1}{ x_2}}{2}, \frac{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right) \)

Stand alone: \(\backslash\text{[}\)\left( \dfrac{\tfrac{x_1}{ x_2}}{2}, \dfrac{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right)\(\backslash\text{]}\)
\[\left( \dfrac{\tfrac{x_1}{ x_2}}{2}, \dfrac{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right) \]

Inline: \(\backslash\text{(}\)\left( \dfrac{\tfrac{x_1}{ x_2}}{2}, \dfrac{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right)\(\backslash\text{)}\)
\(\left( \dfrac{\tfrac{x_1}{ x_2}}{2}, \dfrac{y_1 + y_2}{2}\right) \)

Answer 36

And yes, I changed that formula up. Just showing a fraction inside a fraction, which is another place that \tfrac can come in handy. Force the small fraction inside a large one to make it clear which fraction is part of what.