Command for vector dot with some power
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
So what I am trying to type is the square of the derivative of vector x. I tried dot{vec{x}}^{,2}
as well as dot{vec{x}^2}
, but the outputs came out to be very offset. Is there a correct way to do this?
The code I used is:
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m dot{vec{x^2}}
end{equation}
which give me
math-mode symbols accents
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
So what I am trying to type is the square of the derivative of vector x. I tried dot{vec{x}}^{,2}
as well as dot{vec{x}^2}
, but the outputs came out to be very offset. Is there a correct way to do this?
The code I used is:
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m dot{vec{x^2}}
end{equation}
which give me
math-mode symbols accents
New contributor
Welcome to TeX.SE! Can you please, as usual here -- show us a short compilable code and an screenshot of your result?
– Kurt
Dec 7 at 5:04
1
One reason more for not using the arrow for vectors.
– egreg
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
So what I am trying to type is the square of the derivative of vector x. I tried dot{vec{x}}^{,2}
as well as dot{vec{x}^2}
, but the outputs came out to be very offset. Is there a correct way to do this?
The code I used is:
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m dot{vec{x^2}}
end{equation}
which give me
math-mode symbols accents
New contributor
So what I am trying to type is the square of the derivative of vector x. I tried dot{vec{x}}^{,2}
as well as dot{vec{x}^2}
, but the outputs came out to be very offset. Is there a correct way to do this?
The code I used is:
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m dot{vec{x^2}}
end{equation}
which give me
math-mode symbols accents
math-mode symbols accents
New contributor
New contributor
edited Dec 7 at 5:15
Mico
271k30368756
271k30368756
New contributor
asked Dec 7 at 4:59
Kane Billiot
334
334
New contributor
New contributor
Welcome to TeX.SE! Can you please, as usual here -- show us a short compilable code and an screenshot of your result?
– Kurt
Dec 7 at 5:04
1
One reason more for not using the arrow for vectors.
– egreg
2 days ago
add a comment |
Welcome to TeX.SE! Can you please, as usual here -- show us a short compilable code and an screenshot of your result?
– Kurt
Dec 7 at 5:04
1
One reason more for not using the arrow for vectors.
– egreg
2 days ago
Welcome to TeX.SE! Can you please, as usual here -- show us a short compilable code and an screenshot of your result?
– Kurt
Dec 7 at 5:04
Welcome to TeX.SE! Can you please, as usual here -- show us a short compilable code and an screenshot of your result?
– Kurt
Dec 7 at 5:04
1
1
One reason more for not using the arrow for vectors.
– egreg
2 days ago
One reason more for not using the arrow for vectors.
– egreg
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
I'd probably do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m Dot{vec{x}}^2
end{equation}
end{document}
because the Lagrange function is a function of the square of the time derivative of x (and not the time derivative of the square of x).
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
@KaneBilliot Short answer:Dot
works also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
1
@marmot - For the case at hand, usingdot
andDot
produce the same result.
– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
1
At the beginning,amsmath
provided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version ofamsmath
made the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.
– egreg
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
The first or third option below may be close to what you're looking for. Or, switch from Newton-style to Leibniz-style notation for the derivative, as shown by the fourth option (newly fixed to incorporated @marmot's comment). A separate comment: to make the frac{1}{2}
term less visually dominant, consider using tfrac
instead of frac
.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath} % for tfrac macro and general accent-placement support
begin{document}
[
tfrac{1}{2}m dot{vec{x}} ^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^{,2} quad
tfrac{1}{2}mbigl(tfrac{mathrm{d}vec{x}}{mathrm{d}t}bigr)^{!2}
]
end{document}
2
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.;-)
– egreg
2 days ago
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
2 days ago
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter$d$
that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative?frac{dd}{dt}
? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesettingfrac{dd}{dt}
.
– marmot
2 days ago
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
2 days ago
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the typefrac{dd}{dt}
. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?
– marmot
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
I'd probably do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m Dot{vec{x}}^2
end{equation}
end{document}
because the Lagrange function is a function of the square of the time derivative of x (and not the time derivative of the square of x).
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
@KaneBilliot Short answer:Dot
works also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
1
@marmot - For the case at hand, usingdot
andDot
produce the same result.
– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
1
At the beginning,amsmath
provided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version ofamsmath
made the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.
– egreg
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
I'd probably do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m Dot{vec{x}}^2
end{equation}
end{document}
because the Lagrange function is a function of the square of the time derivative of x (and not the time derivative of the square of x).
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
@KaneBilliot Short answer:Dot
works also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
1
@marmot - For the case at hand, usingdot
andDot
produce the same result.
– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
1
At the beginning,amsmath
provided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version ofamsmath
made the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.
– egreg
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
I'd probably do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m Dot{vec{x}}^2
end{equation}
end{document}
because the Lagrange function is a function of the square of the time derivative of x (and not the time derivative of the square of x).
I'd probably do
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
begin{equation}
L=frac{1}{2} m Dot{vec{x}}^2
end{equation}
end{document}
because the Lagrange function is a function of the square of the time derivative of x (and not the time derivative of the square of x).
answered Dec 7 at 5:26
marmot
81.8k491174
81.8k491174
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
@KaneBilliot Short answer:Dot
works also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
1
@marmot - For the case at hand, usingdot
andDot
produce the same result.
– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
1
At the beginning,amsmath
provided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version ofamsmath
made the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.
– egreg
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
@KaneBilliot Short answer:Dot
works also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.
– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
1
@marmot - For the case at hand, usingdot
andDot
produce the same result.
– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
1
At the beginning,amsmath
provided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version ofamsmath
made the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.
– egreg
2 days ago
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
That's what I wanted to write, but did not know how to. Thanks.
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:27
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
Is there a difference between dot and Dot?
– Kane Billiot
Dec 7 at 5:29
@KaneBilliot Short answer:
Dot
works also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
@KaneBilliot Short answer:
Dot
works also when you already have something on top of the symbol. So it would not shift.– marmot
Dec 7 at 5:30
1
1
@marmot - For the case at hand, using
dot
and Dot
produce the same result.– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
@marmot - For the case at hand, using
dot
and Dot
produce the same result.– Mico
Dec 7 at 5:35
1
1
At the beginning,
amsmath
provided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version of amsmath
made the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.– egreg
2 days ago
At the beginning,
amsmath
provided capitalized versions of the math accent commands, which had to be used for “nested accents”. A later version of amsmath
made the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.– egreg
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
The first or third option below may be close to what you're looking for. Or, switch from Newton-style to Leibniz-style notation for the derivative, as shown by the fourth option (newly fixed to incorporated @marmot's comment). A separate comment: to make the frac{1}{2}
term less visually dominant, consider using tfrac
instead of frac
.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath} % for tfrac macro and general accent-placement support
begin{document}
[
tfrac{1}{2}m dot{vec{x}} ^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^{,2} quad
tfrac{1}{2}mbigl(tfrac{mathrm{d}vec{x}}{mathrm{d}t}bigr)^{!2}
]
end{document}
2
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.;-)
– egreg
2 days ago
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
2 days ago
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter$d$
that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative?frac{dd}{dt}
? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesettingfrac{dd}{dt}
.
– marmot
2 days ago
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
2 days ago
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the typefrac{dd}{dt}
. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?
– marmot
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
5
down vote
The first or third option below may be close to what you're looking for. Or, switch from Newton-style to Leibniz-style notation for the derivative, as shown by the fourth option (newly fixed to incorporated @marmot's comment). A separate comment: to make the frac{1}{2}
term less visually dominant, consider using tfrac
instead of frac
.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath} % for tfrac macro and general accent-placement support
begin{document}
[
tfrac{1}{2}m dot{vec{x}} ^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^{,2} quad
tfrac{1}{2}mbigl(tfrac{mathrm{d}vec{x}}{mathrm{d}t}bigr)^{!2}
]
end{document}
2
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.;-)
– egreg
2 days ago
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
2 days ago
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter$d$
that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative?frac{dd}{dt}
? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesettingfrac{dd}{dt}
.
– marmot
2 days ago
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
2 days ago
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the typefrac{dd}{dt}
. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?
– marmot
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
The first or third option below may be close to what you're looking for. Or, switch from Newton-style to Leibniz-style notation for the derivative, as shown by the fourth option (newly fixed to incorporated @marmot's comment). A separate comment: to make the frac{1}{2}
term less visually dominant, consider using tfrac
instead of frac
.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath} % for tfrac macro and general accent-placement support
begin{document}
[
tfrac{1}{2}m dot{vec{x}} ^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^{,2} quad
tfrac{1}{2}mbigl(tfrac{mathrm{d}vec{x}}{mathrm{d}t}bigr)^{!2}
]
end{document}
The first or third option below may be close to what you're looking for. Or, switch from Newton-style to Leibniz-style notation for the derivative, as shown by the fourth option (newly fixed to incorporated @marmot's comment). A separate comment: to make the frac{1}{2}
term less visually dominant, consider using tfrac
instead of frac
.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath} % for tfrac macro and general accent-placement support
begin{document}
[
tfrac{1}{2}m dot{vec{x}} ^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^2 quad
tfrac{1}{2}m{dot{vec{x}}}^{,2} quad
tfrac{1}{2}mbigl(tfrac{mathrm{d}vec{x}}{mathrm{d}t}bigr)^{!2}
]
end{document}
edited Dec 7 at 5:49
answered Dec 7 at 5:28
Mico
271k30368756
271k30368756
2
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.;-)
– egreg
2 days ago
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
2 days ago
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter$d$
that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative?frac{dd}{dt}
? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesettingfrac{dd}{dt}
.
– marmot
2 days ago
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
2 days ago
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the typefrac{dd}{dt}
. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?
– marmot
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
2
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.;-)
– egreg
2 days ago
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
2 days ago
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter$d$
that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative?frac{dd}{dt}
? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesettingfrac{dd}{dt}
.
– marmot
2 days ago
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
2 days ago
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the typefrac{dd}{dt}
. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?
– marmot
2 days ago
2
2
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.
;-)
– egreg
2 days ago
I'm pretty sure Leibniz didn't use upright d's.
;-)
– egreg
2 days ago
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
2 days ago
@egreg - I'm pretty sure of that too... I switched to slanted to upright d's mainly on the (now deleted) suggestion of marmot. :-)
– Mico
2 days ago
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter
$d$
that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative? frac{dd}{dt}
? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesetting frac{dd}{dt}
.– marmot
2 days ago
@egreg That's a very bold statement. Did you know Leibniz personally? I would bet a lot of money on having him typeset the d's upright. Assume you have diameter
$d$
that depends on time. How would you typeset its time derivative? frac{dd}{dt}
? Not really, right? And after all this is a question on the typesetting a physics Lagrange function, and at least in physics people won't hurt others' eyes by typesetting frac{dd}{dt}
.– marmot
2 days ago
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
2 days ago
@marmot - Wouldn't it be nice to have access to a few first-edition originals -- facsimiles will do too, I suppose -- of Leibniz's own publications? (In case you're curious: I'm afraid I have no such access...)
– Mico
2 days ago
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the type
frac{dd}{dt}
. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?– marmot
2 days ago
@Mico I guess we will not be able to figure out how Leibniz would have typeset it. However, I have a reason for pushing for upright d's, namely examples of the type
frac{dd}{dt}
. Do you have examples in which upright d's lead to an unfortunate output?– marmot
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
Kane Billiot is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kane Billiot is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kane Billiot is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kane Billiot is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f463627%2fcommand-for-vector-dot-with-some-power%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
Welcome to TeX.SE! Can you please, as usual here -- show us a short compilable code and an screenshot of your result?
– Kurt
Dec 7 at 5:04
1
One reason more for not using the arrow for vectors.
– egreg
2 days ago