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



enter image description here










share|improve this question









New contributor




Kane Billiot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • 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















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



enter image description here










share|improve this question









New contributor




Kane Billiot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • 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













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



enter image description here










share|improve this question









New contributor




Kane Billiot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











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



enter image description here







math-mode symbols accents






share|improve this question









New contributor




Kane Billiot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Kane Billiot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 7 at 5:15









Mico

271k30368756




271k30368756






New contributor




Kane Billiot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Dec 7 at 4:59









Kane Billiot

334




334




New contributor




Kane Billiot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Kane Billiot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Kane Billiot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • 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






  • 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










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}


enter image description here



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).






share|improve this answer





















  • 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, using dot and Dot 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 of amsmath made the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.
    – egreg
    2 days ago


















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.



enter image description here



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}





share|improve this answer



















  • 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 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










  • @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













Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Kane Billiot is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















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

























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}


enter image description here



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).






share|improve this answer





















  • 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, using dot and Dot 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 of amsmath made the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.
    – egreg
    2 days ago















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}


enter image description here



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).






share|improve this answer





















  • 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, using dot and Dot 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 of amsmath made the standard commands (all lowercase) “nesting aware”. The other commands remained for back compatibility.
    – egreg
    2 days ago













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}


enter image description here



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).






share|improve this answer












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}


enter image description here



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).







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










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, using dot and Dot 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 of amsmath 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










  • 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, using dot and Dot 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 of amsmath 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










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.



enter image description here



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}





share|improve this answer



















  • 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 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










  • @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

















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.



enter image description here



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}





share|improve this answer



















  • 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 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










  • @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















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.



enter image description here



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}





share|improve this answer














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.



enter image description here



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}






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








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 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










  • @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
















  • 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 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










  • @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










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












Kane Billiot is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...