Adapting bigcup size to array without distortions
I want to have a cup command that adapts to the size of an array on its left (Something like left
and right
for the parenthesis), while keeping the same font for the letters and the thickness of the line. I tried using bigcup
with the scalerel package but the line and the subscript become too wide. I report here a minimal example to show what is the result:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
begin{document}
[
scalerel{
bigcuplimits_{x in X}
}
{
left{
f(x)
begin{array}{| l}
a \ % first row
b \ % second row
c \ % third row
d \ % fourth row
e \ % fifth row
dots \ % etc.
z \ % n-th row
end{array}
right}
}
]
end{document}
The size obtained is the right one, however the size of font x in X
becomes too big and the line too thick.
How can I have a similar result without these distortions?
math-mode
|
show 2 more comments
I want to have a cup command that adapts to the size of an array on its left (Something like left
and right
for the parenthesis), while keeping the same font for the letters and the thickness of the line. I tried using bigcup
with the scalerel package but the line and the subscript become too wide. I report here a minimal example to show what is the result:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
begin{document}
[
scalerel{
bigcuplimits_{x in X}
}
{
left{
f(x)
begin{array}{| l}
a \ % first row
b \ % second row
c \ % third row
d \ % fourth row
e \ % fifth row
dots \ % etc.
z \ % n-th row
end{array}
right}
}
]
end{document}
The size obtained is the right one, however the size of font x in X
becomes too big and the line too thick.
How can I have a similar result without these distortions?
math-mode
2
I've taken the liberty of augmenting your code so that it can be compiled without guessing as to which packages might be needed. Feel free to revert.
– Mico
Feb 25 at 11:28
1
Just out of idle curiosity: Is there a reason for not employing a more conventional-looking solution, such as$bigcup_{xin X} {, f(x) mid a,b,c,dots,z ,}$
?
– Mico
Feb 25 at 11:34
Hey, thank you for the support and the edit, I really appreciate! The reason is thata, b, c, etc.
stands for very long conditions that do not fit inside a single line and are clearer if they are split into multiple lines.
– Briomkez
Feb 25 at 12:03
Depending on just how many rows there are in thearray
, thebigcup
symbol just might become absurdly large. Is there maybe an upper limit on the permissible enlargement of the symbol?
– Mico
Feb 25 at 16:31
1
Is it absolutely necessary to have the cup scale with the array? (Instead of just scaling by a fixed amount to make an ultra large cup to use with arrays.)
– Pippip19
Feb 25 at 20:19
|
show 2 more comments
I want to have a cup command that adapts to the size of an array on its left (Something like left
and right
for the parenthesis), while keeping the same font for the letters and the thickness of the line. I tried using bigcup
with the scalerel package but the line and the subscript become too wide. I report here a minimal example to show what is the result:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
begin{document}
[
scalerel{
bigcuplimits_{x in X}
}
{
left{
f(x)
begin{array}{| l}
a \ % first row
b \ % second row
c \ % third row
d \ % fourth row
e \ % fifth row
dots \ % etc.
z \ % n-th row
end{array}
right}
}
]
end{document}
The size obtained is the right one, however the size of font x in X
becomes too big and the line too thick.
How can I have a similar result without these distortions?
math-mode
I want to have a cup command that adapts to the size of an array on its left (Something like left
and right
for the parenthesis), while keeping the same font for the letters and the thickness of the line. I tried using bigcup
with the scalerel package but the line and the subscript become too wide. I report here a minimal example to show what is the result:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
begin{document}
[
scalerel{
bigcuplimits_{x in X}
}
{
left{
f(x)
begin{array}{| l}
a \ % first row
b \ % second row
c \ % third row
d \ % fourth row
e \ % fifth row
dots \ % etc.
z \ % n-th row
end{array}
right}
}
]
end{document}
The size obtained is the right one, however the size of font x in X
becomes too big and the line too thick.
How can I have a similar result without these distortions?
math-mode
math-mode
edited Feb 25 at 11:31
Briomkez
asked Feb 25 at 11:20
BriomkezBriomkez
1245
1245
2
I've taken the liberty of augmenting your code so that it can be compiled without guessing as to which packages might be needed. Feel free to revert.
– Mico
Feb 25 at 11:28
1
Just out of idle curiosity: Is there a reason for not employing a more conventional-looking solution, such as$bigcup_{xin X} {, f(x) mid a,b,c,dots,z ,}$
?
– Mico
Feb 25 at 11:34
Hey, thank you for the support and the edit, I really appreciate! The reason is thata, b, c, etc.
stands for very long conditions that do not fit inside a single line and are clearer if they are split into multiple lines.
– Briomkez
Feb 25 at 12:03
Depending on just how many rows there are in thearray
, thebigcup
symbol just might become absurdly large. Is there maybe an upper limit on the permissible enlargement of the symbol?
– Mico
Feb 25 at 16:31
1
Is it absolutely necessary to have the cup scale with the array? (Instead of just scaling by a fixed amount to make an ultra large cup to use with arrays.)
– Pippip19
Feb 25 at 20:19
|
show 2 more comments
2
I've taken the liberty of augmenting your code so that it can be compiled without guessing as to which packages might be needed. Feel free to revert.
– Mico
Feb 25 at 11:28
1
Just out of idle curiosity: Is there a reason for not employing a more conventional-looking solution, such as$bigcup_{xin X} {, f(x) mid a,b,c,dots,z ,}$
?
– Mico
Feb 25 at 11:34
Hey, thank you for the support and the edit, I really appreciate! The reason is thata, b, c, etc.
stands for very long conditions that do not fit inside a single line and are clearer if they are split into multiple lines.
– Briomkez
Feb 25 at 12:03
Depending on just how many rows there are in thearray
, thebigcup
symbol just might become absurdly large. Is there maybe an upper limit on the permissible enlargement of the symbol?
– Mico
Feb 25 at 16:31
1
Is it absolutely necessary to have the cup scale with the array? (Instead of just scaling by a fixed amount to make an ultra large cup to use with arrays.)
– Pippip19
Feb 25 at 20:19
2
2
I've taken the liberty of augmenting your code so that it can be compiled without guessing as to which packages might be needed. Feel free to revert.
– Mico
Feb 25 at 11:28
I've taken the liberty of augmenting your code so that it can be compiled without guessing as to which packages might be needed. Feel free to revert.
– Mico
Feb 25 at 11:28
1
1
Just out of idle curiosity: Is there a reason for not employing a more conventional-looking solution, such as
$bigcup_{xin X} {, f(x) mid a,b,c,dots,z ,}$
?– Mico
Feb 25 at 11:34
Just out of idle curiosity: Is there a reason for not employing a more conventional-looking solution, such as
$bigcup_{xin X} {, f(x) mid a,b,c,dots,z ,}$
?– Mico
Feb 25 at 11:34
Hey, thank you for the support and the edit, I really appreciate! The reason is that
a, b, c, etc.
stands for very long conditions that do not fit inside a single line and are clearer if they are split into multiple lines.– Briomkez
Feb 25 at 12:03
Hey, thank you for the support and the edit, I really appreciate! The reason is that
a, b, c, etc.
stands for very long conditions that do not fit inside a single line and are clearer if they are split into multiple lines.– Briomkez
Feb 25 at 12:03
Depending on just how many rows there are in the
array
, the bigcup
symbol just might become absurdly large. Is there maybe an upper limit on the permissible enlargement of the symbol?– Mico
Feb 25 at 16:31
Depending on just how many rows there are in the
array
, the bigcup
symbol just might become absurdly large. Is there maybe an upper limit on the permissible enlargement of the symbol?– Mico
Feb 25 at 16:31
1
1
Is it absolutely necessary to have the cup scale with the array? (Instead of just scaling by a fixed amount to make an ultra large cup to use with arrays.)
– Pippip19
Feb 25 at 20:19
Is it absolutely necessary to have the cup scale with the array? (Instead of just scaling by a fixed amount to make an ultra large cup to use with arrays.)
– Pippip19
Feb 25 at 20:19
|
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I think scaling with the array size you will always be up against the fact that the entire contents of the scalerel
box, including the subscript, are scaled, leading to inconsistent script sizes (and probably ridiculously size cups as well).
I would suggest instead using the scaleobj
command also provided by the scalerel
package, which functions similar to scalebox
from the graphicx
package. While scaling up the entire cup plus subscript, you can scale the subscript alone in the other direction. To get the subscript sitting nicely under the cup after the inner scaling, a raisebox
and smash
can be added:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
newcommandhugecup{%
scaleobj{2.5}{%
bigcuplimits_{smash{raisebox{.25baselineskip}{(scaleobj{0.425}{xin X})}}}
}
}
begin{document}
[
hugecup
left{
f(x)
begin{array}{| l}
a \ % first row
b \ % second row
c \ % third row
d \ % fourth row
e \ % fifth row
dots \ % etc.
z \ % n-th row
end{array}
right}
]
end{document}
Output:
The values used are just what I thought looked sensible for a range of different (large) arrays; you may wish to tweak these.
2
Very nice your answer. My best compliments.
– Sebastiano
Feb 25 at 21:15
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%2f476578%2fadapting-bigcup-size-to-array-without-distortions%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
I think scaling with the array size you will always be up against the fact that the entire contents of the scalerel
box, including the subscript, are scaled, leading to inconsistent script sizes (and probably ridiculously size cups as well).
I would suggest instead using the scaleobj
command also provided by the scalerel
package, which functions similar to scalebox
from the graphicx
package. While scaling up the entire cup plus subscript, you can scale the subscript alone in the other direction. To get the subscript sitting nicely under the cup after the inner scaling, a raisebox
and smash
can be added:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
newcommandhugecup{%
scaleobj{2.5}{%
bigcuplimits_{smash{raisebox{.25baselineskip}{(scaleobj{0.425}{xin X})}}}
}
}
begin{document}
[
hugecup
left{
f(x)
begin{array}{| l}
a \ % first row
b \ % second row
c \ % third row
d \ % fourth row
e \ % fifth row
dots \ % etc.
z \ % n-th row
end{array}
right}
]
end{document}
Output:
The values used are just what I thought looked sensible for a range of different (large) arrays; you may wish to tweak these.
2
Very nice your answer. My best compliments.
– Sebastiano
Feb 25 at 21:15
add a comment |
I think scaling with the array size you will always be up against the fact that the entire contents of the scalerel
box, including the subscript, are scaled, leading to inconsistent script sizes (and probably ridiculously size cups as well).
I would suggest instead using the scaleobj
command also provided by the scalerel
package, which functions similar to scalebox
from the graphicx
package. While scaling up the entire cup plus subscript, you can scale the subscript alone in the other direction. To get the subscript sitting nicely under the cup after the inner scaling, a raisebox
and smash
can be added:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
newcommandhugecup{%
scaleobj{2.5}{%
bigcuplimits_{smash{raisebox{.25baselineskip}{(scaleobj{0.425}{xin X})}}}
}
}
begin{document}
[
hugecup
left{
f(x)
begin{array}{| l}
a \ % first row
b \ % second row
c \ % third row
d \ % fourth row
e \ % fifth row
dots \ % etc.
z \ % n-th row
end{array}
right}
]
end{document}
Output:
The values used are just what I thought looked sensible for a range of different (large) arrays; you may wish to tweak these.
2
Very nice your answer. My best compliments.
– Sebastiano
Feb 25 at 21:15
add a comment |
I think scaling with the array size you will always be up against the fact that the entire contents of the scalerel
box, including the subscript, are scaled, leading to inconsistent script sizes (and probably ridiculously size cups as well).
I would suggest instead using the scaleobj
command also provided by the scalerel
package, which functions similar to scalebox
from the graphicx
package. While scaling up the entire cup plus subscript, you can scale the subscript alone in the other direction. To get the subscript sitting nicely under the cup after the inner scaling, a raisebox
and smash
can be added:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
newcommandhugecup{%
scaleobj{2.5}{%
bigcuplimits_{smash{raisebox{.25baselineskip}{(scaleobj{0.425}{xin X})}}}
}
}
begin{document}
[
hugecup
left{
f(x)
begin{array}{| l}
a \ % first row
b \ % second row
c \ % third row
d \ % fourth row
e \ % fifth row
dots \ % etc.
z \ % n-th row
end{array}
right}
]
end{document}
Output:
The values used are just what I thought looked sensible for a range of different (large) arrays; you may wish to tweak these.
I think scaling with the array size you will always be up against the fact that the entire contents of the scalerel
box, including the subscript, are scaled, leading to inconsistent script sizes (and probably ridiculously size cups as well).
I would suggest instead using the scaleobj
command also provided by the scalerel
package, which functions similar to scalebox
from the graphicx
package. While scaling up the entire cup plus subscript, you can scale the subscript alone in the other direction. To get the subscript sitting nicely under the cup after the inner scaling, a raisebox
and smash
can be added:
documentclass{article}
usepackage{scalerel}
newcommandhugecup{%
scaleobj{2.5}{%
bigcuplimits_{smash{raisebox{.25baselineskip}{(scaleobj{0.425}{xin X})}}}
}
}
begin{document}
[
hugecup
left{
f(x)
begin{array}{| l}
a \ % first row
b \ % second row
c \ % third row
d \ % fourth row
e \ % fifth row
dots \ % etc.
z \ % n-th row
end{array}
right}
]
end{document}
Output:
The values used are just what I thought looked sensible for a range of different (large) arrays; you may wish to tweak these.
answered Feb 25 at 20:58
Pippip19Pippip19
1,5388
1,5388
2
Very nice your answer. My best compliments.
– Sebastiano
Feb 25 at 21:15
add a comment |
2
Very nice your answer. My best compliments.
– Sebastiano
Feb 25 at 21:15
2
2
Very nice your answer. My best compliments.
– Sebastiano
Feb 25 at 21:15
Very nice your answer. My best compliments.
– Sebastiano
Feb 25 at 21:15
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%2f476578%2fadapting-bigcup-size-to-array-without-distortions%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
2
I've taken the liberty of augmenting your code so that it can be compiled without guessing as to which packages might be needed. Feel free to revert.
– Mico
Feb 25 at 11:28
1
Just out of idle curiosity: Is there a reason for not employing a more conventional-looking solution, such as
$bigcup_{xin X} {, f(x) mid a,b,c,dots,z ,}$
?– Mico
Feb 25 at 11:34
Hey, thank you for the support and the edit, I really appreciate! The reason is that
a, b, c, etc.
stands for very long conditions that do not fit inside a single line and are clearer if they are split into multiple lines.– Briomkez
Feb 25 at 12:03
Depending on just how many rows there are in the
array
, thebigcup
symbol just might become absurdly large. Is there maybe an upper limit on the permissible enlargement of the symbol?– Mico
Feb 25 at 16:31
1
Is it absolutely necessary to have the cup scale with the array? (Instead of just scaling by a fixed amount to make an ultra large cup to use with arrays.)
– Pippip19
Feb 25 at 20:19