On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Oliver Buerschaper wrote:
Hi Aditya, hi Taco,
I would really love to see built-in support for theorems in ConTeXt!
I have been typesetting my diploma thesis (in mathematical physics) with ConTeXt and my experience has been that in some areas ConTeXt still needs to catch up a bit on LaTeX (especially on the AMS packages), although it has definitely come along way already ...
So far I have constructed my theorems etc. as enumerations on an adhoc basis and - surprise - noted a few glitches here and there.
1. For some environments I chose style=\it but this resulted in italic equation numbers as well. However, these numbers should always be typeset upright.
This was the first thing I noticed when I started with ConTeXt, see http://archive.contextgarden.net/message/20050526.134831.21522839.en.html ;) Now, I use \setupformulas[numberstyle=normal] in my local setup.
2. There is some odd behaviour concerning the options "right" and "stopper" which I mentioned on the list a while ago. I believe this is more an issue of descriptions/enumerations than anything else but it would affect any theorem mechanism based on enumerations. Perhaps this can be looked into at the same time as you're trying to cook up generic theorems.
I will see if I can do anything about it.
Have you found out anything about the end of proof markers yet?
Not yet. It is possible to have a simple solution that will work in 90% of the case. Coming up with something that works for 98% of the cases is very hard. I do not understand the working of TeX to do that. The idea is to make sure the problem is well defined so that Hans and Taco can solve it :)
I haven't tried it out but how do the AMS folks handle this issue?
The end-of-proof handling in amsthm is not correct. It requires you to manually put \qedhere and does not work correctly if the proof ends with a equation. Look at ntheorem.sty for the correct behaviour.
Unfortunately, I don't have the TeX programming experience (yet) to start digging myself ...
Even a description of the expected features and how the output should look like will be useful. This is going to be slow progress due to other time constraints, but I should have something working in a month or two. Aditya
Hi Aditya,
Aditya Mahajan wrote:
4. The theorem should have a title. The title should be optional.
Is partially implemented
I used to work around that by defining a layer on top of the enumerations that always define the enumeration's settings on the fly. Quite inefficient, but it worked OK. Support in the core would be much nicer, though.
I will try to add this to as a patch to enumerations, and see how it works.
The last things, that is the end of proof marker, is right now not possible in ConTeXt. There are a lot of things that need to be taken care of while having a end-of-proof marker: basically, you need to ensure that there is no page break between the proof and the marker. Also the marker needs to be moved up or down, depending on how the proof ends. At the very least, ConTeXt should have something that ensures that the end of proof marker does not go onto a page of its own.
End of proof markers are a pain, and I see no easy solution.
I saw a proof.tex for plain tex, which ensured that the end of the line marker stayed on the same page. No support for correct spacing for itemize and formula. The ntheorem package does that, but I do not fully understand the algorithm, so it may be harder to port. I will try a port of proof.tex if I can find it again.
Aditya
ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
-- Aditya Mahajan | EECS Systems, University of Michigan http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~adityam | Ph: 734.262.4008