Absolute Value Symbols

211

What is the "best LaTeX practices" for writing absolute value symbols? Are there any packages which provide good methods?

Some options include |x| and mid x mid, but I'm not sure which is best...

edited Feb 1 '12 at 19:21

doncherry

35.3k23137209

asked Jan 31 '12 at 23:41

jamaicanworm

10.7k3585128

37

usepackage{amsmath}...(lvert xrvert); mid denotes a relation symbol and is wrong for the absolute value.

– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:45

1

Should I do $usepackage{mathtools}...DeclarePairedDelimiter{vert}{lvert}{rvert} as per your answer to a previous question? tex.stackexchange.com/a/42274/9757

– jamaicanworm
Jan 31 '12 at 23:47

3

It's a good possibility. It depends on how many absolute values you have in your document; for a couple I wouldn't bother. But vert is not a good choice, as it's already defined.

– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:50

1

Thanks! Why do people not just use the keyboard | symbol?

– jamaicanworm
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16

20

You can actually use |, but in some situations a certain care is needed. For instance (|{-1}|=1) without the braces would come out wrong, while (lvert-1rvert=1) surely gives correct output.

– egreg
Feb 1 '12 at 0:22

|
show 2 more comments

211

What is the "best LaTeX practices" for writing absolute value symbols? Are there any packages which provide good methods?

Some options include |x| and mid x mid, but I'm not sure which is best...

edited Feb 1 '12 at 19:21

doncherry

35.3k23137209

asked Jan 31 '12 at 23:41

jamaicanworm

10.7k3585128

37

usepackage{amsmath}...(lvert xrvert); mid denotes a relation symbol and is wrong for the absolute value.

– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:45

1

Should I do $usepackage{mathtools}...DeclarePairedDelimiter{vert}{lvert}{rvert} as per your answer to a previous question? tex.stackexchange.com/a/42274/9757

– jamaicanworm
Jan 31 '12 at 23:47

3

It's a good possibility. It depends on how many absolute values you have in your document; for a couple I wouldn't bother. But vert is not a good choice, as it's already defined.

– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:50

1

Thanks! Why do people not just use the keyboard | symbol?

– jamaicanworm
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16

20

You can actually use |, but in some situations a certain care is needed. For instance (|{-1}|=1) without the braces would come out wrong, while (lvert-1rvert=1) surely gives correct output.

– egreg
Feb 1 '12 at 0:22

|
show 2 more comments

211

What is the "best LaTeX practices" for writing absolute value symbols? Are there any packages which provide good methods?

Some options include |x| and mid x mid, but I'm not sure which is best...

edited Feb 1 '12 at 19:21

doncherry

35.3k23137209

asked Jan 31 '12 at 23:41

jamaicanworm

10.7k3585128

What is the "best LaTeX practices" for writing absolute value symbols? Are there any packages which provide good methods?

Some options include |x| and mid x mid, but I'm not sure which is best...

math-mode symbols

edited Feb 1 '12 at 19:21

doncherry

35.3k23137209

asked Jan 31 '12 at 23:41

jamaicanworm

10.7k3585128

edited Feb 1 '12 at 19:21

doncherry

35.3k23137209

asked Jan 31 '12 at 23:41

jamaicanworm

10.7k3585128

edited Feb 1 '12 at 19:21

doncherry

35.3k23137209

edited Feb 1 '12 at 19:21

doncherry

35.3k23137209

edited Feb 1 '12 at 19:21

doncherry

35.3k23137209

asked Jan 31 '12 at 23:41

jamaicanworm

10.7k3585128

asked Jan 31 '12 at 23:41

jamaicanworm

10.7k3585128

asked Jan 31 '12 at 23:41

jamaicanworm

10.7k3585128

37

usepackage{amsmath}...(lvert xrvert); mid denotes a relation symbol and is wrong for the absolute value.

– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:45

1

Should I do $usepackage{mathtools}...DeclarePairedDelimiter{vert}{lvert}{rvert} as per your answer to a previous question? tex.stackexchange.com/a/42274/9757

– jamaicanworm
Jan 31 '12 at 23:47

3

It's a good possibility. It depends on how many absolute values you have in your document; for a couple I wouldn't bother. But vert is not a good choice, as it's already defined.

– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:50

1

Thanks! Why do people not just use the keyboard | symbol?

– jamaicanworm
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16

20

You can actually use |, but in some situations a certain care is needed. For instance (|{-1}|=1) without the braces would come out wrong, while (lvert-1rvert=1) surely gives correct output.

– egreg
Feb 1 '12 at 0:22

|
show 2 more comments

37

usepackage{amsmath}...(lvert xrvert); mid denotes a relation symbol and is wrong for the absolute value.

– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:45

1

Should I do $usepackage{mathtools}...DeclarePairedDelimiter{vert}{lvert}{rvert} as per your answer to a previous question? tex.stackexchange.com/a/42274/9757

– jamaicanworm
Jan 31 '12 at 23:47

3

It's a good possibility. It depends on how many absolute values you have in your document; for a couple I wouldn't bother. But vert is not a good choice, as it's already defined.

– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:50

1

Thanks! Why do people not just use the keyboard | symbol?

– jamaicanworm
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16

20

You can actually use |, but in some situations a certain care is needed. For instance (|{-1}|=1) without the braces would come out wrong, while (lvert-1rvert=1) surely gives correct output.

– egreg
Feb 1 '12 at 0:22

usepackage{amsmath}...(lvert xrvert); mid denotes a relation symbol and is wrong for the absolute value.

– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:45

Should I do $usepackage{mathtools}...DeclarePairedDelimiter{vert}{lvert}{rvert} as per your answer to a previous question? tex.stackexchange.com/a/42274/9757

– jamaicanworm
Jan 31 '12 at 23:47

It's a good possibility. It depends on how many absolute values you have in your document; for a couple I wouldn't bother. But vert is not a good choice, as it's already defined.

– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:50

Thanks! Why do people not just use the keyboard | symbol?

– jamaicanworm
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16

You can actually use |, but in some situations a certain care is needed. For instance (|{-1}|=1) without the braces would come out wrong, while (lvert-1rvert=1) surely gives correct output.

– egreg
Feb 1 '12 at 0:22

|
show 2 more comments

7 Answers
7

active

oldest

votes

168

I have been using the code below using DeclarePairedDelimiter from the mathtools package.

Since I don't think I have a case where I don't want this to scale based on the parameter, I make use of Swap definition of starred and non-starred command so that the normal use will automatically scale, and the starred version won't:

enter image description here

If you want it the other way around comment out the code between makeatother...makeatletter.

documentclass{article}

usepackage{mathtools}



DeclarePairedDelimiterabs{lvert}{rvert}%

DeclarePairedDelimiternorm{lVert}{rVert}%



% Swap the definition of abs* and norm*, so that abs

% and norm resizes the size of the brackets, and the 

% starred version does not.

makeatletter

letoldabsabs

defabs{@ifstar{oldabs}{oldabs*}}

%

letoldnormnorm

defnorm{@ifstar{oldnorm}{oldnorm*}}

makeatother



newcommand*{Value}{frac{1}{2}x^2}%

begin{document}

    [abs{Value}  quad norm{Value}  qquadtext{non-starred}  ]

    [abs*{Value} quad norm*{Value} qquadtext{starred}qquad]

end{document}

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:35

Community♦

answered Jan 31 '12 at 23:48

Peter Grill

167k25445758

3

@egreg: Agreed. But I have not encountered that with abs yet. BTW, I like your "always is generally wrong" :-)

– Peter Grill
Jan 31 '12 at 23:57

2

@jamaicanworm: I used dfrac in this case to make a larger fraction in inline mode. This is not normally recommended in inline mode as it breaks paragraph spacing. I will update the solution to remove that.

– Peter Grill
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16

2

There's a reason why it's preferable to use the *-version for the automatic resizing macro: always using left and right is wrong, in general.

– egreg
Oct 15 '12 at 17:24

2

+1, even though I have to say that this answer is not very skim-reading friendly with the huge "starred"/"non-starred" picture and the remark somewhere in the text "BTW, normal behaviour is the other way around". The question OTOH is one that makes everything in this thread very prone to being skim-read.

– Christian
Feb 27 '13 at 18:10

3

a definite advantage of using commands like abs and norm which no one seems to have mentioned: since the | symbol has special meaning in the makeidx context, trying to enter terminology using a bare | within index{...} will result in (delayed) errors and a lot of hair pulling for someone not really familiar with that usage. commands like the ones shown here (or even just bare vert, Vert or mid) is a lot safer and worth becoming familiar with.

– barbara beeton
Aug 19 '17 at 3:14

|
show 4 more comments

Note if you just use | you get mathord spacing, which is different from the spacing you'd get from paired mathopen/mathclose delimiters or from left/right even if left/right doesn't stretch the symbol. Personally I prefer the left/right spacing from mathinner here (even if @egreg says I'm generally wrong:-)

documentclass{amsart}



begin{document}



$  log|x||y|b $



$  logleft|xright|left|yright|b $



$  logmathopen|xmathclose|mathopen|ymathclose|b $



end{document}

enter image description here

edited May 30 '15 at 20:44

Svend Tveskæg

20.8k1052142

answered Feb 1 '12 at 10:32

David Carlisle

496k4111441890

add a comment |

One can also use commath package.

documentclass{article}



usepackage{commath}



begin{document}

[ norm{a vec{u}} = abs{a} , norm{vec{v}} ]

end{document}

enter image description here

edited Feb 20 '14 at 14:35

answered Dec 8 '13 at 17:21

Wildcat

79358

5

+1 for this one, as it includes the semantics and has a relatively short syntax.

– Martin Thoma
May 28 '15 at 19:28

1

The spacing is somehow bad when used as subscript. The abs{} of physics is the better choice in my opinion.

– fyaa
Nov 21 '16 at 9:43

add a comment |

The physics LaTeX package also implements abs and norm:

documentclass{article}



usepackage{physics}



begin{document}

    [ c = abs{-c} ]

    [ vu{a} = frac{vb{a}}{norm{vb{a}}} ]

end{document}

enter image description here

edited Jul 22 '16 at 17:49

answered Jul 22 '16 at 17:00

NauticalMile

45848

1

I think this is the easiest solution!

– Francesco Boccardo
Feb 27 '18 at 11:23

add a comment |

A simple, LaTeX native way of doing this is by using the | delimiter, with the standard left and right modifiers (source).

For example:

left| sum_{i=1}^{n} x^2 right|

gives

enter image description here

answered Aug 11 '17 at 12:04

pietrodn

26124

Also: using the | delimiter (without the preceding backslash) inserts a single vertical bar.

– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:06

1

For fun try |+a|, as you can see this is wrong, and thus generally users should not just use |...| or |...| as they may accidentally come into situations where this is wrong. I'll leave it as an exercise why this happens. Plus in your example the fences does not need to be that tall.

– daleif
Aug 11 '17 at 12:11

With |+a| the spacing appears to be wrong, but with left|+aright| it appears to be fine.

– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:19

2

Correct because one is left and the other is right. But left and right should only be added when actually needed (which is actually not often). My complain to your answer is that it is not good in general, for reasons that are explained in comments to other answers in this thread.

– daleif
Aug 11 '17 at 12:22

add a comment |

For LyX users: maybe I have just overlooked how to do it correctly, but I couldn't find a way of doing this natively.

I thus used a 1x1-Matrix environment and set the kind to determinant. It might just be a hack, but it works fine in my usecase.

answered May 28 '15 at 18:51

Mene

326210

add a comment |

documentclass{article}

usepackage{amsmath}

begin{document}

[

  %begin equation

lVert w rVert

%end equation

]

end{document}

enter image description here

answered Feb 20 '18 at 9:21

alhelal

1,014219

add a comment |

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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
});

}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43008%2fabsolute-value-symbols%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

7 Answers
7

active

oldest

votes

7 Answers
7

active

oldest

votes

168

I have been using the code below using DeclarePairedDelimiter from the mathtools package.

enter image description here

If you want it the other way around comment out the code between makeatother...makeatletter.

documentclass{article}

usepackage{mathtools}



DeclarePairedDelimiterabs{lvert}{rvert}%

DeclarePairedDelimiternorm{lVert}{rVert}%



% Swap the definition of abs* and norm*, so that abs

% and norm resizes the size of the brackets, and the 

% starred version does not.

makeatletter

letoldabsabs

defabs{@ifstar{oldabs}{oldabs*}}

%

letoldnormnorm

defnorm{@ifstar{oldnorm}{oldnorm*}}

makeatother



newcommand*{Value}{frac{1}{2}x^2}%

begin{document}

    [abs{Value}  quad norm{Value}  qquadtext{non-starred}  ]

    [abs*{Value} quad norm*{Value} qquadtext{starred}qquad]

end{document}

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:35

Community♦

answered Jan 31 '12 at 23:48

Peter Grill

167k25445758

3

@egreg: Agreed. But I have not encountered that with abs yet. BTW, I like your "always is generally wrong" :-)

– Peter Grill
Jan 31 '12 at 23:57

2

@jamaicanworm: I used dfrac in this case to make a larger fraction in inline mode. This is not normally recommended in inline mode as it breaks paragraph spacing. I will update the solution to remove that.

– Peter Grill
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16

2

There's a reason why it's preferable to use the *-version for the automatic resizing macro: always using left and right is wrong, in general.

– egreg
Oct 15 '12 at 17:24

2

+1, even though I have to say that this answer is not very skim-reading friendly with the huge "starred"/"non-starred" picture and the remark somewhere in the text "BTW, normal behaviour is the other way around". The question OTOH is one that makes everything in this thread very prone to being skim-read.

– Christian
Feb 27 '13 at 18:10

3

a definite advantage of using commands like abs and norm which no one seems to have mentioned: since the | symbol has special meaning in the makeidx context, trying to enter terminology using a bare | within index{...} will result in (delayed) errors and a lot of hair pulling for someone not really familiar with that usage. commands like the ones shown here (or even just bare vert, Vert or mid) is a lot safer and worth becoming familiar with.

– barbara beeton
Aug 19 '17 at 3:14

|
show 4 more comments

168

I have been using the code below using DeclarePairedDelimiter from the mathtools package.

enter image description here

If you want it the other way around comment out the code between makeatother...makeatletter.

documentclass{article}

usepackage{mathtools}



DeclarePairedDelimiterabs{lvert}{rvert}%

DeclarePairedDelimiternorm{lVert}{rVert}%



% Swap the definition of abs* and norm*, so that abs

% and norm resizes the size of the brackets, and the 

% starred version does not.

makeatletter

letoldabsabs

defabs{@ifstar{oldabs}{oldabs*}}

%

letoldnormnorm

defnorm{@ifstar{oldnorm}{oldnorm*}}

makeatother



newcommand*{Value}{frac{1}{2}x^2}%

begin{document}

    [abs{Value}  quad norm{Value}  qquadtext{non-starred}  ]

    [abs*{Value} quad norm*{Value} qquadtext{starred}qquad]

end{document}

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:35

Community♦

answered Jan 31 '12 at 23:48

Peter Grill

167k25445758

3

@egreg: Agreed. But I have not encountered that with abs yet. BTW, I like your "always is generally wrong" :-)

– Peter Grill
Jan 31 '12 at 23:57

2

@jamaicanworm: I used dfrac in this case to make a larger fraction in inline mode. This is not normally recommended in inline mode as it breaks paragraph spacing. I will update the solution to remove that.

– Peter Grill
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16

2

There's a reason why it's preferable to use the *-version for the automatic resizing macro: always using left and right is wrong, in general.

– egreg
Oct 15 '12 at 17:24

2

+1, even though I have to say that this answer is not very skim-reading friendly with the huge "starred"/"non-starred" picture and the remark somewhere in the text "BTW, normal behaviour is the other way around". The question OTOH is one that makes everything in this thread very prone to being skim-read.

– Christian
Feb 27 '13 at 18:10

3

a definite advantage of using commands like abs and norm which no one seems to have mentioned: since the | symbol has special meaning in the makeidx context, trying to enter terminology using a bare | within index{...} will result in (delayed) errors and a lot of hair pulling for someone not really familiar with that usage. commands like the ones shown here (or even just bare vert, Vert or mid) is a lot safer and worth becoming familiar with.

– barbara beeton
Aug 19 '17 at 3:14

|
show 4 more comments

168

I have been using the code below using DeclarePairedDelimiter from the mathtools package.

enter image description here

If you want it the other way around comment out the code between makeatother...makeatletter.

documentclass{article}

usepackage{mathtools}



DeclarePairedDelimiterabs{lvert}{rvert}%

DeclarePairedDelimiternorm{lVert}{rVert}%



% Swap the definition of abs* and norm*, so that abs

% and norm resizes the size of the brackets, and the 

% starred version does not.

makeatletter

letoldabsabs

defabs{@ifstar{oldabs}{oldabs*}}

%

letoldnormnorm

defnorm{@ifstar{oldnorm}{oldnorm*}}

makeatother



newcommand*{Value}{frac{1}{2}x^2}%

begin{document}

    [abs{Value}  quad norm{Value}  qquadtext{non-starred}  ]

    [abs*{Value} quad norm*{Value} qquadtext{starred}qquad]

end{document}

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:35

Community♦

answered Jan 31 '12 at 23:48

Peter Grill

167k25445758

I have been using the code below using DeclarePairedDelimiter from the mathtools package.

enter image description here

If you want it the other way around comment out the code between makeatother...makeatletter.

documentclass{article}

usepackage{mathtools}



DeclarePairedDelimiterabs{lvert}{rvert}%

DeclarePairedDelimiternorm{lVert}{rVert}%



% Swap the definition of abs* and norm*, so that abs

% and norm resizes the size of the brackets, and the 

% starred version does not.

makeatletter

letoldabsabs

defabs{@ifstar{oldabs}{oldabs*}}

%

letoldnormnorm

defnorm{@ifstar{oldnorm}{oldnorm*}}

makeatother



newcommand*{Value}{frac{1}{2}x^2}%

begin{document}

    [abs{Value}  quad norm{Value}  qquadtext{non-starred}  ]

    [abs*{Value} quad norm*{Value} qquadtext{starred}qquad]

end{document}

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:35

Community♦

answered Jan 31 '12 at 23:48

Peter Grill

167k25445758

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:35

Community♦

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:35

Community♦

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:35

Community♦

answered Jan 31 '12 at 23:48

Peter Grill

167k25445758

answered Jan 31 '12 at 23:48

Peter Grill

167k25445758

answered Jan 31 '12 at 23:48

Peter Grill

167k25445758

3

@egreg: Agreed. But I have not encountered that with abs yet. BTW, I like your "always is generally wrong" :-)

– Peter Grill
Jan 31 '12 at 23:57

2

@jamaicanworm: I used dfrac in this case to make a larger fraction in inline mode. This is not normally recommended in inline mode as it breaks paragraph spacing. I will update the solution to remove that.

– Peter Grill
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16

2

There's a reason why it's preferable to use the *-version for the automatic resizing macro: always using left and right is wrong, in general.

– egreg
Oct 15 '12 at 17:24

2

+1, even though I have to say that this answer is not very skim-reading friendly with the huge "starred"/"non-starred" picture and the remark somewhere in the text "BTW, normal behaviour is the other way around". The question OTOH is one that makes everything in this thread very prone to being skim-read.

– Christian
Feb 27 '13 at 18:10

3

a definite advantage of using commands like abs and norm which no one seems to have mentioned: since the | symbol has special meaning in the makeidx context, trying to enter terminology using a bare | within index{...} will result in (delayed) errors and a lot of hair pulling for someone not really familiar with that usage. commands like the ones shown here (or even just bare vert, Vert or mid) is a lot safer and worth becoming familiar with.

– barbara beeton
Aug 19 '17 at 3:14

|
show 4 more comments

3

@egreg: Agreed. But I have not encountered that with abs yet. BTW, I like your "always is generally wrong" :-)

– Peter Grill
Jan 31 '12 at 23:57

2

@jamaicanworm: I used dfrac in this case to make a larger fraction in inline mode. This is not normally recommended in inline mode as it breaks paragraph spacing. I will update the solution to remove that.

– Peter Grill
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16

2

There's a reason why it's preferable to use the *-version for the automatic resizing macro: always using left and right is wrong, in general.

– egreg
Oct 15 '12 at 17:24

2

+1, even though I have to say that this answer is not very skim-reading friendly with the huge "starred"/"non-starred" picture and the remark somewhere in the text "BTW, normal behaviour is the other way around". The question OTOH is one that makes everything in this thread very prone to being skim-read.

– Christian
Feb 27 '13 at 18:10

3

a definite advantage of using commands like abs and norm which no one seems to have mentioned: since the | symbol has special meaning in the makeidx context, trying to enter terminology using a bare | within index{...} will result in (delayed) errors and a lot of hair pulling for someone not really familiar with that usage. commands like the ones shown here (or even just bare vert, Vert or mid) is a lot safer and worth becoming familiar with.

– barbara beeton
Aug 19 '17 at 3:14

@egreg: Agreed. But I have not encountered that with abs yet. BTW, I like your "always is generally wrong" :-)

– Peter Grill
Jan 31 '12 at 23:57

@jamaicanworm: I used dfrac in this case to make a larger fraction in inline mode. This is not normally recommended in inline mode as it breaks paragraph spacing. I will update the solution to remove that.

– Peter Grill
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16

There's a reason why it's preferable to use the *-version for the automatic resizing macro: always using left and right is wrong, in general.

– egreg
Oct 15 '12 at 17:24

+1, even though I have to say that this answer is not very skim-reading friendly with the huge "starred"/"non-starred" picture and the remark somewhere in the text "BTW, normal behaviour is the other way around". The question OTOH is one that makes everything in this thread very prone to being skim-read.

– Christian
Feb 27 '13 at 18:10

a definite advantage of using commands like abs and norm which no one seems to have mentioned: since the | symbol has special meaning in the makeidx context, trying to enter terminology using a bare | within index{...} will result in (delayed) errors and a lot of hair pulling for someone not really familiar with that usage. commands like the ones shown here (or even just bare vert, Vert or mid) is a lot safer and worth becoming familiar with.

– barbara beeton
Aug 19 '17 at 3:14

|
show 4 more comments

documentclass{amsart}



begin{document}



$  log|x||y|b $



$  logleft|xright|left|yright|b $



$  logmathopen|xmathclose|mathopen|ymathclose|b $



end{document}

enter image description here

edited May 30 '15 at 20:44

Svend Tveskæg

20.8k1052142

answered Feb 1 '12 at 10:32

David Carlisle

496k4111441890

add a comment |

documentclass{amsart}



begin{document}



$  log|x||y|b $



$  logleft|xright|left|yright|b $



$  logmathopen|xmathclose|mathopen|ymathclose|b $



end{document}

enter image description here

edited May 30 '15 at 20:44

Svend Tveskæg

20.8k1052142

answered Feb 1 '12 at 10:32

David Carlisle

496k4111441890

add a comment |

documentclass{amsart}



begin{document}



$  log|x||y|b $



$  logleft|xright|left|yright|b $



$  logmathopen|xmathclose|mathopen|ymathclose|b $



end{document}

enter image description here

edited May 30 '15 at 20:44

Svend Tveskæg

20.8k1052142

answered Feb 1 '12 at 10:32

David Carlisle

496k4111441890

documentclass{amsart}



begin{document}



$  log|x||y|b $



$  logleft|xright|left|yright|b $



$  logmathopen|xmathclose|mathopen|ymathclose|b $



end{document}

enter image description here

edited May 30 '15 at 20:44

Svend Tveskæg

20.8k1052142

answered Feb 1 '12 at 10:32

David Carlisle

496k4111441890

edited May 30 '15 at 20:44

Svend Tveskæg

20.8k1052142

edited May 30 '15 at 20:44

Svend Tveskæg

20.8k1052142

edited May 30 '15 at 20:44

Svend Tveskæg

20.8k1052142

answered Feb 1 '12 at 10:32

David Carlisle

496k4111441890

answered Feb 1 '12 at 10:32

David Carlisle

496k4111441890

answered Feb 1 '12 at 10:32

David Carlisle

496k4111441890

add a comment |

One can also use commath package.

documentclass{article}



usepackage{commath}



begin{document}

[ norm{a vec{u}} = abs{a} , norm{vec{v}} ]

end{document}

enter image description here

edited Feb 20 '14 at 14:35

answered Dec 8 '13 at 17:21

Wildcat

79358

5

+1 for this one, as it includes the semantics and has a relatively short syntax.

– Martin Thoma
May 28 '15 at 19:28

1

The spacing is somehow bad when used as subscript. The abs{} of physics is the better choice in my opinion.

– fyaa
Nov 21 '16 at 9:43

add a comment |

One can also use commath package.

documentclass{article}



usepackage{commath}



begin{document}

[ norm{a vec{u}} = abs{a} , norm{vec{v}} ]

end{document}

enter image description here

edited Feb 20 '14 at 14:35

answered Dec 8 '13 at 17:21

Wildcat

79358

5

+1 for this one, as it includes the semantics and has a relatively short syntax.

– Martin Thoma
May 28 '15 at 19:28

1

The spacing is somehow bad when used as subscript. The abs{} of physics is the better choice in my opinion.

– fyaa
Nov 21 '16 at 9:43

add a comment |

One can also use commath package.

documentclass{article}



usepackage{commath}



begin{document}

[ norm{a vec{u}} = abs{a} , norm{vec{v}} ]

end{document}

enter image description here

edited Feb 20 '14 at 14:35

answered Dec 8 '13 at 17:21

Wildcat

79358

One can also use commath package.

documentclass{article}



usepackage{commath}



begin{document}

[ norm{a vec{u}} = abs{a} , norm{vec{v}} ]

end{document}

enter image description here

edited Feb 20 '14 at 14:35

answered Dec 8 '13 at 17:21

Wildcat

79358

edited Feb 20 '14 at 14:35

answered Dec 8 '13 at 17:21

Wildcat

79358

answered Dec 8 '13 at 17:21

Wildcat

79358

answered Dec 8 '13 at 17:21

Wildcat

79358

5

+1 for this one, as it includes the semantics and has a relatively short syntax.

– Martin Thoma
May 28 '15 at 19:28

1

The spacing is somehow bad when used as subscript. The abs{} of physics is the better choice in my opinion.

– fyaa
Nov 21 '16 at 9:43

add a comment |

5

+1 for this one, as it includes the semantics and has a relatively short syntax.

– Martin Thoma
May 28 '15 at 19:28

1

The spacing is somehow bad when used as subscript. The abs{} of physics is the better choice in my opinion.

– fyaa
Nov 21 '16 at 9:43

+1 for this one, as it includes the semantics and has a relatively short syntax.

– Martin Thoma
May 28 '15 at 19:28

The spacing is somehow bad when used as subscript. The abs{} of physics is the better choice in my opinion.

– fyaa
Nov 21 '16 at 9:43

add a comment |

The physics LaTeX package also implements abs and norm:

documentclass{article}



usepackage{physics}



begin{document}

    [ c = abs{-c} ]

    [ vu{a} = frac{vb{a}}{norm{vb{a}}} ]

end{document}

enter image description here

edited Jul 22 '16 at 17:49

answered Jul 22 '16 at 17:00

NauticalMile

45848

1

I think this is the easiest solution!

– Francesco Boccardo
Feb 27 '18 at 11:23

add a comment |

The physics LaTeX package also implements abs and norm:

documentclass{article}



usepackage{physics}



begin{document}

    [ c = abs{-c} ]

    [ vu{a} = frac{vb{a}}{norm{vb{a}}} ]

end{document}

enter image description here

edited Jul 22 '16 at 17:49

answered Jul 22 '16 at 17:00

NauticalMile

45848

1

I think this is the easiest solution!

– Francesco Boccardo
Feb 27 '18 at 11:23

add a comment |

The physics LaTeX package also implements abs and norm:

documentclass{article}



usepackage{physics}



begin{document}

    [ c = abs{-c} ]

    [ vu{a} = frac{vb{a}}{norm{vb{a}}} ]

end{document}

enter image description here

edited Jul 22 '16 at 17:49

answered Jul 22 '16 at 17:00

NauticalMile

45848

The physics LaTeX package also implements abs and norm:

documentclass{article}



usepackage{physics}



begin{document}

    [ c = abs{-c} ]

    [ vu{a} = frac{vb{a}}{norm{vb{a}}} ]

end{document}

enter image description here

edited Jul 22 '16 at 17:49

answered Jul 22 '16 at 17:00

NauticalMile

45848

edited Jul 22 '16 at 17:49

answered Jul 22 '16 at 17:00

NauticalMile

45848

answered Jul 22 '16 at 17:00

NauticalMile

45848

answered Jul 22 '16 at 17:00

NauticalMile

45848

1

I think this is the easiest solution!

– Francesco Boccardo
Feb 27 '18 at 11:23

add a comment |

1

I think this is the easiest solution!

– Francesco Boccardo
Feb 27 '18 at 11:23

I think this is the easiest solution!

– Francesco Boccardo
Feb 27 '18 at 11:23

add a comment |

A simple, LaTeX native way of doing this is by using the | delimiter, with the standard left and right modifiers (source).

For example:

left| sum_{i=1}^{n} x^2 right|

gives

enter image description here

answered Aug 11 '17 at 12:04

pietrodn

26124

Also: using the | delimiter (without the preceding backslash) inserts a single vertical bar.

– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:06

1

For fun try |+a|, as you can see this is wrong, and thus generally users should not just use |...| or |...| as they may accidentally come into situations where this is wrong. I'll leave it as an exercise why this happens. Plus in your example the fences does not need to be that tall.

– daleif
Aug 11 '17 at 12:11

With |+a| the spacing appears to be wrong, but with left|+aright| it appears to be fine.

– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:19

2

Correct because one is left and the other is right. But left and right should only be added when actually needed (which is actually not often). My complain to your answer is that it is not good in general, for reasons that are explained in comments to other answers in this thread.

– daleif
Aug 11 '17 at 12:22

add a comment |

A simple, LaTeX native way of doing this is by using the | delimiter, with the standard left and right modifiers (source).

For example:

left| sum_{i=1}^{n} x^2 right|

gives

enter image description here

answered Aug 11 '17 at 12:04

pietrodn

26124

Also: using the | delimiter (without the preceding backslash) inserts a single vertical bar.

– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:06

1

For fun try |+a|, as you can see this is wrong, and thus generally users should not just use |...| or |...| as they may accidentally come into situations where this is wrong. I'll leave it as an exercise why this happens. Plus in your example the fences does not need to be that tall.

– daleif
Aug 11 '17 at 12:11

With |+a| the spacing appears to be wrong, but with left|+aright| it appears to be fine.

– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:19

2

Correct because one is left and the other is right. But left and right should only be added when actually needed (which is actually not often). My complain to your answer is that it is not good in general, for reasons that are explained in comments to other answers in this thread.

– daleif
Aug 11 '17 at 12:22

add a comment |

A simple, LaTeX native way of doing this is by using the | delimiter, with the standard left and right modifiers (source).

For example:

left| sum_{i=1}^{n} x^2 right|

gives

enter image description here

answered Aug 11 '17 at 12:04

pietrodn

26124

A simple, LaTeX native way of doing this is by using the | delimiter, with the standard left and right modifiers (source).

For example:

left| sum_{i=1}^{n} x^2 right|

gives

enter image description here

answered Aug 11 '17 at 12:04

pietrodn

26124

answered Aug 11 '17 at 12:04

pietrodn

26124

answered Aug 11 '17 at 12:04

pietrodn

26124

answered Aug 11 '17 at 12:04

pietrodn

26124

Also: using the | delimiter (without the preceding backslash) inserts a single vertical bar.

– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:06

1

For fun try |+a|, as you can see this is wrong, and thus generally users should not just use |...| or |...| as they may accidentally come into situations where this is wrong. I'll leave it as an exercise why this happens. Plus in your example the fences does not need to be that tall.

– daleif
Aug 11 '17 at 12:11

With |+a| the spacing appears to be wrong, but with left|+aright| it appears to be fine.

– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:19

2

Correct because one is left and the other is right. But left and right should only be added when actually needed (which is actually not often). My complain to your answer is that it is not good in general, for reasons that are explained in comments to other answers in this thread.

– daleif
Aug 11 '17 at 12:22

add a comment |

Also: using the | delimiter (without the preceding backslash) inserts a single vertical bar.

– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:06

1

For fun try |+a|, as you can see this is wrong, and thus generally users should not just use |...| or |...| as they may accidentally come into situations where this is wrong. I'll leave it as an exercise why this happens. Plus in your example the fences does not need to be that tall.

– daleif
Aug 11 '17 at 12:11

With |+a| the spacing appears to be wrong, but with left|+aright| it appears to be fine.

– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:19

2

Correct because one is left and the other is right. But left and right should only be added when actually needed (which is actually not often). My complain to your answer is that it is not good in general, for reasons that are explained in comments to other answers in this thread.

– daleif
Aug 11 '17 at 12:22

Also: using the | delimiter (without the preceding backslash) inserts a single vertical bar.

– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:06

For fun try |+a|, as you can see this is wrong, and thus generally users should not just use |...| or |...| as they may accidentally come into situations where this is wrong. I'll leave it as an exercise why this happens. Plus in your example the fences does not need to be that tall.

– daleif
Aug 11 '17 at 12:11

With |+a| the spacing appears to be wrong, but with left|+aright| it appears to be fine.

– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:19

Correct because one is left and the other is right. But left and right should only be added when actually needed (which is actually not often). My complain to your answer is that it is not good in general, for reasons that are explained in comments to other answers in this thread.

– daleif
Aug 11 '17 at 12:22

add a comment |

For LyX users: maybe I have just overlooked how to do it correctly, but I couldn't find a way of doing this natively.

I thus used a 1x1-Matrix environment and set the kind to determinant. It might just be a hack, but it works fine in my usecase.

answered May 28 '15 at 18:51

Mene

326210

add a comment |

For LyX users: maybe I have just overlooked how to do it correctly, but I couldn't find a way of doing this natively.

I thus used a 1x1-Matrix environment and set the kind to determinant. It might just be a hack, but it works fine in my usecase.

answered May 28 '15 at 18:51

Mene

326210

add a comment |

For LyX users: maybe I have just overlooked how to do it correctly, but I couldn't find a way of doing this natively.

I thus used a 1x1-Matrix environment and set the kind to determinant. It might just be a hack, but it works fine in my usecase.

answered May 28 '15 at 18:51

Mene

326210

For LyX users: maybe I have just overlooked how to do it correctly, but I couldn't find a way of doing this natively.

I thus used a 1x1-Matrix environment and set the kind to determinant. It might just be a hack, but it works fine in my usecase.

answered May 28 '15 at 18:51

Mene

326210

answered May 28 '15 at 18:51

Mene

326210

answered May 28 '15 at 18:51

Mene

326210

answered May 28 '15 at 18:51

Mene

326210

add a comment |

documentclass{article}

usepackage{amsmath}

begin{document}

[

  %begin equation

lVert w rVert

%end equation

]

end{document}

enter image description here

answered Feb 20 '18 at 9:21

alhelal

1,014219

add a comment |

documentclass{article}

usepackage{amsmath}

begin{document}

[

  %begin equation

lVert w rVert

%end equation

]

end{document}

enter image description here

answered Feb 20 '18 at 9:21

alhelal

1,014219

add a comment |

documentclass{article}

usepackage{amsmath}

begin{document}

[

  %begin equation

lVert w rVert

%end equation

]

end{document}

enter image description here

answered Feb 20 '18 at 9:21

alhelal

1,014219

documentclass{article}

usepackage{amsmath}

begin{document}

[

  %begin equation

lVert w rVert

%end equation

]

end{document}

enter image description here

answered Feb 20 '18 at 9:21

alhelal

1,014219

answered Feb 20 '18 at 9:21

alhelal

1,014219

answered Feb 20 '18 at 9:21

alhelal

1,014219

answered Feb 20 '18 at 9:21

alhelal

1,014219

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

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.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Cfrgtkky