Absolute Value Symbols
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
|
show 2 more comments
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
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$usepackage{mathtools}...DeclarePairedDelimiter{vert}{lvert}{rvert}
as per your answer to a previous question? tex.stackexchange.com/a/42274/9757
– jamaicanworm
Jan 31 '12 at 23:47
3
It's a good possibility. It depends on how many absolute values you have in your document; for a couple I wouldn't bother. Butvert
is not a good choice, as it's already defined.
– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:50
1
Thanks! Why do people not just use the keyboard|
symbol?
– jamaicanworm
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16
20
You can actually use|
, but in some situations a certain care is needed. For instance(|{-1}|=1)
without the braces would come out wrong, while(lvert-1rvert=1)
surely gives correct output.
– egreg
Feb 1 '12 at 0:22
|
show 2 more comments
What is the "best LaTeX practices" for writing absolute value symbols? Are there any packages which provide good methods?
Some options include |x|
and mid x mid
, but I'm not sure which is best...
math-mode symbols
What is the "best LaTeX practices" for writing absolute value symbols? Are there any packages which provide good methods?
Some options include |x|
and mid x mid
, but I'm not sure which is best...
math-mode symbols
math-mode symbols
edited Feb 1 '12 at 19:21
doncherry
35.3k23137209
35.3k23137209
asked Jan 31 '12 at 23:41
jamaicanwormjamaicanworm
10.7k3585128
10.7k3585128
37
usepackage{amsmath}...(lvert xrvert)
;mid
denotes a relation symbol and is wrong for the absolute value.
– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:45
1
Should I do$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. Butvert
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. Butvert
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
37
37
usepackage{amsmath}...(lvert xrvert)
; mid
denotes a relation symbol and is wrong for the absolute value.– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:45
usepackage{amsmath}...(lvert xrvert)
; mid
denotes a relation symbol and is wrong for the absolute value.– egreg
Jan 31 '12 at 23:45
1
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
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
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
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
1
Thanks! Why do people not just use the keyboard
|
symbol?– jamaicanworm
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16
Thanks! Why do people not just use the keyboard
|
symbol?– jamaicanworm
Feb 1 '12 at 0:16
20
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
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
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:
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}
3
@egreg: Agreed. But I have not encountered that withabs
yet. BTW, I like your "always is generally wrong" :-)
– Peter Grill
Jan 31 '12 at 23:57
2
@jamaicanworm: I useddfrac
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 usingleft
andright
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 likeabs
andnorm
which no one seems to have mentioned: since the|
symbol has special meaning in themakeidx
context, trying to enter terminology using a bare|
withinindex{...}
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 barevert
,Vert
ormid
) 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}
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}
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. Theabs{}
ofphysics
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}
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
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 withleft|+aright|
it appears to be fine.
– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:19
2
Correct because one is left and the other is right. Butleft
andright
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.
add a comment |
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
[
%begin equation
lVert w rVert
%end equation
]
end{document}
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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:
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}
3
@egreg: Agreed. But I have not encountered that withabs
yet. BTW, I like your "always is generally wrong" :-)
– Peter Grill
Jan 31 '12 at 23:57
2
@jamaicanworm: I useddfrac
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 usingleft
andright
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 likeabs
andnorm
which no one seems to have mentioned: since the|
symbol has special meaning in themakeidx
context, trying to enter terminology using a bare|
withinindex{...}
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 barevert
,Vert
ormid
) is a lot safer and worth becoming familiar with.
– barbara beeton
Aug 19 '17 at 3:14
|
show 4 more comments
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:
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}
3
@egreg: Agreed. But I have not encountered that withabs
yet. BTW, I like your "always is generally wrong" :-)
– Peter Grill
Jan 31 '12 at 23:57
2
@jamaicanworm: I useddfrac
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 usingleft
andright
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 likeabs
andnorm
which no one seems to have mentioned: since the|
symbol has special meaning in themakeidx
context, trying to enter terminology using a bare|
withinindex{...}
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 barevert
,Vert
ormid
) is a lot safer and worth becoming familiar with.
– barbara beeton
Aug 19 '17 at 3:14
|
show 4 more comments
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:
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}
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:
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♦
1
1
answered Jan 31 '12 at 23:48
Peter GrillPeter Grill
167k25445758
167k25445758
3
@egreg: Agreed. But I have not encountered that withabs
yet. BTW, I like your "always is generally wrong" :-)
– Peter Grill
Jan 31 '12 at 23:57
2
@jamaicanworm: I useddfrac
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 usingleft
andright
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 likeabs
andnorm
which no one seems to have mentioned: since the|
symbol has special meaning in themakeidx
context, trying to enter terminology using a bare|
withinindex{...}
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 barevert
,Vert
ormid
) 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 withabs
yet. BTW, I like your "always is generally wrong" :-)
– Peter Grill
Jan 31 '12 at 23:57
2
@jamaicanworm: I useddfrac
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 usingleft
andright
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 likeabs
andnorm
which no one seems to have mentioned: since the|
symbol has special meaning in themakeidx
context, trying to enter terminology using a bare|
withinindex{...}
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 barevert
,Vert
ormid
) is a lot safer and worth becoming familiar with.
– barbara beeton
Aug 19 '17 at 3:14
3
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
@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
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
@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
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
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
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
+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
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
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}
add a comment |
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}
add a comment |
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}
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}
edited May 30 '15 at 20:44
Svend Tveskæg
20.8k1052142
20.8k1052142
answered Feb 1 '12 at 10:32
David CarlisleDavid Carlisle
496k4111441890
496k4111441890
add a comment |
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}
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. Theabs{}
ofphysics
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}
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. Theabs{}
ofphysics
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}
One can also use commath
package.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{commath}
begin{document}
[ norm{a vec{u}} = abs{a} , norm{vec{v}} ]
end{document}
edited Feb 20 '14 at 14:35
answered Dec 8 '13 at 17:21
WildcatWildcat
79358
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. Theabs{}
ofphysics
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. Theabs{}
ofphysics
is the better choice in my opinion.
– fyaa
Nov 21 '16 at 9:43
5
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 for this one, as it includes the semantics and has a relatively short syntax.
– Martin Thoma
May 28 '15 at 19:28
1
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
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}
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}
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}
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}
edited Jul 22 '16 at 17:49
answered Jul 22 '16 at 17:00
NauticalMileNauticalMile
45848
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
1
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
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 withleft|+aright|
it appears to be fine.
– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:19
2
Correct because one is left and the other is right. Butleft
andright
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
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 withleft|+aright|
it appears to be fine.
– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:19
2
Correct because one is left and the other is right. Butleft
andright
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
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
answered Aug 11 '17 at 12:04
pietrodnpietrodn
26124
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 withleft|+aright|
it appears to be fine.
– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:19
2
Correct because one is left and the other is right. Butleft
andright
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 withleft|+aright|
it appears to be fine.
– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:19
2
Correct because one is left and the other is right. Butleft
andright
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
Also: using the
|
delimiter (without the preceding backslash) inserts a single vertical bar.– pietrodn
Aug 11 '17 at 12:06
1
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
MeneMene
326210
326210
add a comment |
add a comment |
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
[
%begin equation
lVert w rVert
%end equation
]
end{document}
add a comment |
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
[
%begin equation
lVert w rVert
%end equation
]
end{document}
add a comment |
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
[
%begin equation
lVert w rVert
%end equation
]
end{document}
documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}
begin{document}
[
%begin equation
lVert w rVert
%end equation
]
end{document}
answered Feb 20 '18 at 9:21
alhelalalhelal
1,014219
1,014219
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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