AMSTeX compatibility: `\dotsb` is not defined
Dear ConTeXt folks, `\dotsb` is not defined although it is defined in AMSTeX (amsmath) [1]. Please find the following minimal example also attached. \starttext This throws an error, since »\backslash dotsb« is not defined. \startformula 1 + 2 + 3 + \dotsb + n = \frac{n}{2} (n + 1) \stopformula \stoptext This is the error. […] system > begin file dotsb.tex at line 1 ! Undefined control sequence. system > tex > error on line 5 in file dotsb.tex: Undefined control sequence ... 1 \starttext 2 This throws an error, since »\backslash dotsb« is not defined. 3 4 \startformula 5 >> 1 + 2 + 3 + \dotsb + n = \frac{n}{2} (n + 1) 6 \stopformula 7 \stoptext 8 l.5 1 + 2 + 3 + \dotsb + n = \frac{n}{2} (n + 1) ? […] Is `\dotsb` not defined intentionally? Thanks, Paul [1] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Mathematics#Introducing_text_and_dots_in_...
Am 03.05.2011 um 15:46 schrieb Paul Menzel:
Dear ConTeXt folks,
`\dotsb` is not defined although it is defined in AMSTeX (amsmath) [1].
Why don’t you use \cdots, i can see no difference between your linked example and mine below. \setupbodyfont[pagella] \starttext \formula{A_1+\cdots+A_N}\par \formula{A_1+⋯+A_N} \stoptext Wolfgang
Am Dienstag, den 03.05.2011, 22:25 +0200 schrieb Wolfgang Schuster:
Am 03.05.2011 um 15:46 schrieb Paul Menzel:
`\dotsb` is not defined although it is defined in AMSTeX (amsmath) [1].
Why don’t you use \cdots, i can see no difference between your linked example and mine below.
\setupbodyfont[pagella] \starttext \formula{A_1+\cdots+A_N}\par \formula{A_1+⋯+A_N} \stoptext
That is correct. I think the AMS introduced `\dotsb` to separate the content and the markup, since some publishers use the lower dots »…« and not the centered ones »⋯« between operators. So `\dotsb` could just be redefined. Additionally amsmath defines it and to be compatible ConTeXt could define it too. Aditya more or less wrote the same in here response. Thanks, Paul
On Tue, 3 May 2011, Paul Menzel wrote:
Dear ConTeXt folks,
`\dotsb` is not defined although it is defined in AMSTeX (amsmath) [1].
Is `\dotsb` not defined intentionally?
I do not completely understand why this command is needed. I think that the intent of amstex is that the user should use \dotsb for dots between binary operators and then change \dotsb to \cdots or \ldots depending on convention. If so, we need to add them to \setupmathematics or perhaps add a new command \setupmathdots[binary=middle,comma=low,...and others...] or something similar. Aditya
Am Dienstag, den 03.05.2011, 23:54 -0400 schrieb Aditya Mahajan:
On Tue, 3 May 2011, Paul Menzel wrote:
`\dotsb` is not defined although it is defined in AMSTeX (amsmath) [1].
Is `\dotsb` not defined intentionally?
I do not completely understand why this command is needed. I think that the intent of amstex is that the user should use \dotsb for dots between binary operators and then change \dotsb to \cdots or \ldots depending on convention. If so, we need to add them to \setupmathematics or perhaps add a new command
\setupmathdots[binary=middle,comma=low,...and others...]
or something similar.
I think the question is the following. Does ConTeXt want to define all commands amstex/amsmath defines? Thanks, Paul
On 4-5-2011 12:52, Paul Menzel wrote:
I think the question is the following. Does ConTeXt want to define all commands amstex/amsmath defines?
You need to convince Aditya then as he has to make up that list. Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 4 May 2011, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 4-5-2011 12:52, Paul Menzel wrote:
I think the question is the following. Does ConTeXt want to define all commands amstex/amsmath defines?
You need to convince Aditya then as he has to make up that list.
I think that ConTeXt should be feature compatible with amstex; not necessarily syntax compatible. Although syntax compatibility eases the translation of old amstex documents to ConTeXt, it is not a good long term solution. So, the question remains, is this feature (changing the meaning of \dotsb etc) by authors? If so, we can add an option to \setupmathematics or a dedicated \setupdots (or something similar) command. Aditya
Am Montag, den 09.05.2011, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Aditya Mahajan:
On Wed, 4 May 2011, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 4-5-2011 12:52, Paul Menzel wrote:
I think the question is the following. Does ConTeXt want to define all commands amstex/amsmath defines?
You need to convince Aditya then as he has to make up that list.
I think that ConTeXt should be feature compatible with amstex; not necessarily syntax compatible. Although syntax compatibility eases the translation of old amstex documents to ConTeXt, it is not a good long term solution.
So, the question remains, is this feature (changing the meaning of \dotsb etc) by authors?
s/by/needed by/? If it takes more than 10 minutes to implement or increases the maintenance burden, I can live without it.
If so, we can add an option to \setupmathematics or a dedicated \setupdots (or something similar) command.
That sounds like a feasible solution. Thanks, Paul
On 9-5-2011 11:13, Paul Menzel wrote:
If so, we can add an option to \setupmathematics or a dedicated \setupdots (or something similar) command.
That sounds like a feasible solution.
I have no clue what dotsb is supposed to to so it's up to Aditya to provide it. Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
participants (4)
-
Aditya Mahajan -
Hans Hagen -
Paul Menzel -
Wolfgang Schuster