Hadamard theorem about embedding












14














The following theorem is commonly attributed to Jacques Hadamard.




Assume $Sigma$ is a smooth locally convex immersed surface in the Euclidean space. Then $Sigma$ is embedded and bounds a convex set.




Many authors refer to Hadamard's Sur certaines propriétés des trajectoires en Dynamique (1897)
(for example, James Stoker in his Über die Gestalt der positiv... (1936)).



Likely the statement is there, but the paper is long, it is in French and often the statements are not clearly marked; I was searching for it for several days. I asked a friend and she said that it was there 20 years ago, but she could not find it; she also said that it was not easy to extract it from what is written ( = one has to think). [For sure the word immersion is not there.]



I hope someone here knows this paper and can help me.



P.S. Now I see it this way: Stoker was the first who had formulated and proved the theorem; at the beginning of his paper he attributed the theorem to Hadamard because it almost follow from item 23 in his paper. After Stoker everyone did the same.






reference-request dg.differential-geometry curves-and-surfaces surfaces







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    To remain in the spirit of this site, a present-day referee would probably tell Hadamard : "unclear what you're claiming" !
    – Sylvain JULIEN
    Nov 22 '18 at 21:28
















14














The following theorem is commonly attributed to Jacques Hadamard.




Assume $Sigma$ is a smooth locally convex immersed surface in the Euclidean space. Then $Sigma$ is embedded and bounds a convex set.




Many authors refer to Hadamard's Sur certaines propriétés des trajectoires en Dynamique (1897)
(for example, James Stoker in his Über die Gestalt der positiv... (1936)).



Likely the statement is there, but the paper is long, it is in French and often the statements are not clearly marked; I was searching for it for several days. I asked a friend and she said that it was there 20 years ago, but she could not find it; she also said that it was not easy to extract it from what is written ( = one has to think). [For sure the word immersion is not there.]



I hope someone here knows this paper and can help me.



P.S. Now I see it this way: Stoker was the first who had formulated and proved the theorem; at the beginning of his paper he attributed the theorem to Hadamard because it almost follow from item 23 in his paper. After Stoker everyone did the same.






reference-request dg.differential-geometry curves-and-surfaces surfaces







share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    To remain in the spirit of this site, a present-day referee would probably tell Hadamard : "unclear what you're claiming" !
    – Sylvain JULIEN
    Nov 22 '18 at 21:28














14












14








14


4





The following theorem is commonly attributed to Jacques Hadamard.




Assume $Sigma$ is a smooth locally convex immersed surface in the Euclidean space. Then $Sigma$ is embedded and bounds a convex set.




Many authors refer to Hadamard's Sur certaines propriétés des trajectoires en Dynamique (1897)
(for example, James Stoker in his Über die Gestalt der positiv... (1936)).



Likely the statement is there, but the paper is long, it is in French and often the statements are not clearly marked; I was searching for it for several days. I asked a friend and she said that it was there 20 years ago, but she could not find it; she also said that it was not easy to extract it from what is written ( = one has to think). [For sure the word immersion is not there.]



I hope someone here knows this paper and can help me.



P.S. Now I see it this way: Stoker was the first who had formulated and proved the theorem; at the beginning of his paper he attributed the theorem to Hadamard because it almost follow from item 23 in his paper. After Stoker everyone did the same.






reference-request dg.differential-geometry curves-and-surfaces surfaces







share|cite|improve this question















The following theorem is commonly attributed to Jacques Hadamard.




Assume $Sigma$ is a smooth locally convex immersed surface in the Euclidean space. Then $Sigma$ is embedded and bounds a convex set.




Many authors refer to Hadamard's Sur certaines propriétés des trajectoires en Dynamique (1897)
(for example, James Stoker in his Über die Gestalt der positiv... (1936)).



Likely the statement is there, but the paper is long, it is in French and often the statements are not clearly marked; I was searching for it for several days. I asked a friend and she said that it was there 20 years ago, but she could not find it; she also said that it was not easy to extract it from what is written ( = one has to think). [For sure the word immersion is not there.]



I hope someone here knows this paper and can help me.



P.S. Now I see it this way: Stoker was the first who had formulated and proved the theorem; at the beginning of his paper he attributed the theorem to Hadamard because it almost follow from item 23 in his paper. After Stoker everyone did the same.






reference-request dg.differential-geometry curves-and-surfaces surfaces




reference-request dg.differential-geometry curves-and-surfaces surfaces






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 5 '18 at 4:47







Anton Petrunin

















asked Nov 22 '18 at 21:06









Anton PetruninAnton Petrunin

26.7k582200




26.7k582200








  • 2




    To remain in the spirit of this site, a present-day referee would probably tell Hadamard : "unclear what you're claiming" !
    – Sylvain JULIEN
    Nov 22 '18 at 21:28














  • 2




    To remain in the spirit of this site, a present-day referee would probably tell Hadamard : "unclear what you're claiming" !
    – Sylvain JULIEN
    Nov 22 '18 at 21:28








2




2




To remain in the spirit of this site, a present-day referee would probably tell Hadamard : "unclear what you're claiming" !
– Sylvain JULIEN
Nov 22 '18 at 21:28




To remain in the spirit of this site, a present-day referee would probably tell Hadamard : "unclear what you're claiming" !
– Sylvain JULIEN
Nov 22 '18 at 21:28










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















11














I think the relevant location is item 23, page 352, but what Hadamard aims to is stated as follows:




A smooth, co-orientable surface of $mathbb{R}^3$ with Gauss curvature bounded below by some $kappa >0$ is simply connected. (implicitly, the surface is compact without boundary)




("Or une surface à deux côtés et sans points singuliers, à courbure partout positive (la valeur zéro et les valeurs infiniment petites étant exclues) est toujours simplement connexe.")



The goal is to use the Gauss-Bonnet Formula to deduce that when curvature is positive, any two closed geodesics must meet (otherwise they would together bound a total curvature 0 region of the surface).



What is not clear from the text of item 23 is whether the surface assumed to be immersed or embedded. He basically says that the normal map is a global diffeomorphism, because positive curvature makes it a covering of the sphere.



It seems the argument does provide the statement attributed to this paper, although it seems not explicitly stated. Second edit: Mohammad Ghomi gives an argument to that effect in comment.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
    – Anton Petrunin
    Nov 23 '18 at 4:55












  • @AntonPetrunin you are probably right but I do not have much time checking in details. I would not be surprised, given the informality of the discussion, if the attribution of this statement would be somewhat of a stretch. In any case, I do not think it was the point Hadamard wanted to make (and he might assume the embedding in the first place).
    – Benoît Kloeckner
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:58






  • 5




    Injectivity of the gauss map implies embeddedness of the surface via convexity. Namely if the gauss map is injective, then it is easy to see that the surface must lie on one side of its tangent planes. If not, then the height function with respect to some tangent plane must have at least 3 critical points, and so at two of these points the normals will be parallel (this is now a well-known argument, and probably was not hard for Hadamard to figure out either). Once the surface is convex, then it must be embedded.
    – Mohammad Ghomi
    Nov 24 '18 at 15:37












  • @MohammadGhomi that is right, but I do not see this argument in the paper. By the way it seems that you apply basic Morse theory which was developed much later.
    – Anton Petrunin
    Nov 25 '18 at 20:04






  • 2




    @AntonPetrunin: my conclusion is that the setting of the paper is not precise enough to contain the statement attributed to it. There seems to be no consideration of embedded versus immersed surfaces.
    – Benoît Kloeckner
    Nov 26 '18 at 19:40











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
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
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f315987%2fhadamard-theorem-about-embedding%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









11














I think the relevant location is item 23, page 352, but what Hadamard aims to is stated as follows:




A smooth, co-orientable surface of $mathbb{R}^3$ with Gauss curvature bounded below by some $kappa >0$ is simply connected. (implicitly, the surface is compact without boundary)




("Or une surface à deux côtés et sans points singuliers, à courbure partout positive (la valeur zéro et les valeurs infiniment petites étant exclues) est toujours simplement connexe.")



The goal is to use the Gauss-Bonnet Formula to deduce that when curvature is positive, any two closed geodesics must meet (otherwise they would together bound a total curvature 0 region of the surface).



What is not clear from the text of item 23 is whether the surface assumed to be immersed or embedded. He basically says that the normal map is a global diffeomorphism, because positive curvature makes it a covering of the sphere.



It seems the argument does provide the statement attributed to this paper, although it seems not explicitly stated. Second edit: Mohammad Ghomi gives an argument to that effect in comment.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
    – Anton Petrunin
    Nov 23 '18 at 4:55












  • @AntonPetrunin you are probably right but I do not have much time checking in details. I would not be surprised, given the informality of the discussion, if the attribution of this statement would be somewhat of a stretch. In any case, I do not think it was the point Hadamard wanted to make (and he might assume the embedding in the first place).
    – Benoît Kloeckner
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:58






  • 5




    Injectivity of the gauss map implies embeddedness of the surface via convexity. Namely if the gauss map is injective, then it is easy to see that the surface must lie on one side of its tangent planes. If not, then the height function with respect to some tangent plane must have at least 3 critical points, and so at two of these points the normals will be parallel (this is now a well-known argument, and probably was not hard for Hadamard to figure out either). Once the surface is convex, then it must be embedded.
    – Mohammad Ghomi
    Nov 24 '18 at 15:37












  • @MohammadGhomi that is right, but I do not see this argument in the paper. By the way it seems that you apply basic Morse theory which was developed much later.
    – Anton Petrunin
    Nov 25 '18 at 20:04






  • 2




    @AntonPetrunin: my conclusion is that the setting of the paper is not precise enough to contain the statement attributed to it. There seems to be no consideration of embedded versus immersed surfaces.
    – Benoît Kloeckner
    Nov 26 '18 at 19:40
















11














I think the relevant location is item 23, page 352, but what Hadamard aims to is stated as follows:




A smooth, co-orientable surface of $mathbb{R}^3$ with Gauss curvature bounded below by some $kappa >0$ is simply connected. (implicitly, the surface is compact without boundary)




("Or une surface à deux côtés et sans points singuliers, à courbure partout positive (la valeur zéro et les valeurs infiniment petites étant exclues) est toujours simplement connexe.")



The goal is to use the Gauss-Bonnet Formula to deduce that when curvature is positive, any two closed geodesics must meet (otherwise they would together bound a total curvature 0 region of the surface).



What is not clear from the text of item 23 is whether the surface assumed to be immersed or embedded. He basically says that the normal map is a global diffeomorphism, because positive curvature makes it a covering of the sphere.



It seems the argument does provide the statement attributed to this paper, although it seems not explicitly stated. Second edit: Mohammad Ghomi gives an argument to that effect in comment.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
    – Anton Petrunin
    Nov 23 '18 at 4:55












  • @AntonPetrunin you are probably right but I do not have much time checking in details. I would not be surprised, given the informality of the discussion, if the attribution of this statement would be somewhat of a stretch. In any case, I do not think it was the point Hadamard wanted to make (and he might assume the embedding in the first place).
    – Benoît Kloeckner
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:58






  • 5




    Injectivity of the gauss map implies embeddedness of the surface via convexity. Namely if the gauss map is injective, then it is easy to see that the surface must lie on one side of its tangent planes. If not, then the height function with respect to some tangent plane must have at least 3 critical points, and so at two of these points the normals will be parallel (this is now a well-known argument, and probably was not hard for Hadamard to figure out either). Once the surface is convex, then it must be embedded.
    – Mohammad Ghomi
    Nov 24 '18 at 15:37












  • @MohammadGhomi that is right, but I do not see this argument in the paper. By the way it seems that you apply basic Morse theory which was developed much later.
    – Anton Petrunin
    Nov 25 '18 at 20:04






  • 2




    @AntonPetrunin: my conclusion is that the setting of the paper is not precise enough to contain the statement attributed to it. There seems to be no consideration of embedded versus immersed surfaces.
    – Benoît Kloeckner
    Nov 26 '18 at 19:40














11












11








11






I think the relevant location is item 23, page 352, but what Hadamard aims to is stated as follows:




A smooth, co-orientable surface of $mathbb{R}^3$ with Gauss curvature bounded below by some $kappa >0$ is simply connected. (implicitly, the surface is compact without boundary)




("Or une surface à deux côtés et sans points singuliers, à courbure partout positive (la valeur zéro et les valeurs infiniment petites étant exclues) est toujours simplement connexe.")



The goal is to use the Gauss-Bonnet Formula to deduce that when curvature is positive, any two closed geodesics must meet (otherwise they would together bound a total curvature 0 region of the surface).



What is not clear from the text of item 23 is whether the surface assumed to be immersed or embedded. He basically says that the normal map is a global diffeomorphism, because positive curvature makes it a covering of the sphere.



It seems the argument does provide the statement attributed to this paper, although it seems not explicitly stated. Second edit: Mohammad Ghomi gives an argument to that effect in comment.






share|cite|improve this answer














I think the relevant location is item 23, page 352, but what Hadamard aims to is stated as follows:




A smooth, co-orientable surface of $mathbb{R}^3$ with Gauss curvature bounded below by some $kappa >0$ is simply connected. (implicitly, the surface is compact without boundary)




("Or une surface à deux côtés et sans points singuliers, à courbure partout positive (la valeur zéro et les valeurs infiniment petites étant exclues) est toujours simplement connexe.")



The goal is to use the Gauss-Bonnet Formula to deduce that when curvature is positive, any two closed geodesics must meet (otherwise they would together bound a total curvature 0 region of the surface).



What is not clear from the text of item 23 is whether the surface assumed to be immersed or embedded. He basically says that the normal map is a global diffeomorphism, because positive curvature makes it a covering of the sphere.



It seems the argument does provide the statement attributed to this paper, although it seems not explicitly stated. Second edit: Mohammad Ghomi gives an argument to that effect in comment.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Nov 24 '18 at 22:29

























answered Nov 22 '18 at 21:28









Benoît KloecknerBenoît Kloeckner

10.9k14483




10.9k14483












  • The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
    – Anton Petrunin
    Nov 23 '18 at 4:55












  • @AntonPetrunin you are probably right but I do not have much time checking in details. I would not be surprised, given the informality of the discussion, if the attribution of this statement would be somewhat of a stretch. In any case, I do not think it was the point Hadamard wanted to make (and he might assume the embedding in the first place).
    – Benoît Kloeckner
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:58






  • 5




    Injectivity of the gauss map implies embeddedness of the surface via convexity. Namely if the gauss map is injective, then it is easy to see that the surface must lie on one side of its tangent planes. If not, then the height function with respect to some tangent plane must have at least 3 critical points, and so at two of these points the normals will be parallel (this is now a well-known argument, and probably was not hard for Hadamard to figure out either). Once the surface is convex, then it must be embedded.
    – Mohammad Ghomi
    Nov 24 '18 at 15:37












  • @MohammadGhomi that is right, but I do not see this argument in the paper. By the way it seems that you apply basic Morse theory which was developed much later.
    – Anton Petrunin
    Nov 25 '18 at 20:04






  • 2




    @AntonPetrunin: my conclusion is that the setting of the paper is not precise enough to contain the statement attributed to it. There seems to be no consideration of embedded versus immersed surfaces.
    – Benoît Kloeckner
    Nov 26 '18 at 19:40


















  • The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
    – Anton Petrunin
    Nov 23 '18 at 4:55












  • @AntonPetrunin you are probably right but I do not have much time checking in details. I would not be surprised, given the informality of the discussion, if the attribution of this statement would be somewhat of a stretch. In any case, I do not think it was the point Hadamard wanted to make (and he might assume the embedding in the first place).
    – Benoît Kloeckner
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:58






  • 5




    Injectivity of the gauss map implies embeddedness of the surface via convexity. Namely if the gauss map is injective, then it is easy to see that the surface must lie on one side of its tangent planes. If not, then the height function with respect to some tangent plane must have at least 3 critical points, and so at two of these points the normals will be parallel (this is now a well-known argument, and probably was not hard for Hadamard to figure out either). Once the surface is convex, then it must be embedded.
    – Mohammad Ghomi
    Nov 24 '18 at 15:37












  • @MohammadGhomi that is right, but I do not see this argument in the paper. By the way it seems that you apply basic Morse theory which was developed much later.
    – Anton Petrunin
    Nov 25 '18 at 20:04






  • 2




    @AntonPetrunin: my conclusion is that the setting of the paper is not precise enough to contain the statement attributed to it. There seems to be no consideration of embedded versus immersed surfaces.
    – Benoît Kloeckner
    Nov 26 '18 at 19:40
















The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
– Anton Petrunin
Nov 23 '18 at 4:55






The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
– Anton Petrunin
Nov 23 '18 at 4:55














@AntonPetrunin you are probably right but I do not have much time checking in details. I would not be surprised, given the informality of the discussion, if the attribution of this statement would be somewhat of a stretch. In any case, I do not think it was the point Hadamard wanted to make (and he might assume the embedding in the first place).
– Benoît Kloeckner
Nov 23 '18 at 13:58




@AntonPetrunin you are probably right but I do not have much time checking in details. I would not be surprised, given the informality of the discussion, if the attribution of this statement would be somewhat of a stretch. In any case, I do not think it was the point Hadamard wanted to make (and he might assume the embedding in the first place).
– Benoît Kloeckner
Nov 23 '18 at 13:58




5




5




Injectivity of the gauss map implies embeddedness of the surface via convexity. Namely if the gauss map is injective, then it is easy to see that the surface must lie on one side of its tangent planes. If not, then the height function with respect to some tangent plane must have at least 3 critical points, and so at two of these points the normals will be parallel (this is now a well-known argument, and probably was not hard for Hadamard to figure out either). Once the surface is convex, then it must be embedded.
– Mohammad Ghomi
Nov 24 '18 at 15:37






Injectivity of the gauss map implies embeddedness of the surface via convexity. Namely if the gauss map is injective, then it is easy to see that the surface must lie on one side of its tangent planes. If not, then the height function with respect to some tangent plane must have at least 3 critical points, and so at two of these points the normals will be parallel (this is now a well-known argument, and probably was not hard for Hadamard to figure out either). Once the surface is convex, then it must be embedded.
– Mohammad Ghomi
Nov 24 '18 at 15:37














@MohammadGhomi that is right, but I do not see this argument in the paper. By the way it seems that you apply basic Morse theory which was developed much later.
– Anton Petrunin
Nov 25 '18 at 20:04




@MohammadGhomi that is right, but I do not see this argument in the paper. By the way it seems that you apply basic Morse theory which was developed much later.
– Anton Petrunin
Nov 25 '18 at 20:04




2




2




@AntonPetrunin: my conclusion is that the setting of the paper is not precise enough to contain the statement attributed to it. There seems to be no consideration of embedded versus immersed surfaces.
– Benoît Kloeckner
Nov 26 '18 at 19:40




@AntonPetrunin: my conclusion is that the setting of the paper is not precise enough to contain the statement attributed to it. There seems to be no consideration of embedded versus immersed surfaces.
– Benoît Kloeckner
Nov 26 '18 at 19:40


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


  • 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.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f315987%2fhadamard-theorem-about-embedding%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

How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

Image
3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question
Read more

Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

Image
up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx
Read more

Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

Image
0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"
Read more