[nabla9]

There are lots of applications that can be used to write math that is converted into LaTeX equations. You can also use MathML -> Latex

The equation subset is the best part of LaTeX syntax and so many people learn it. It's very compact compared to alternatives.

[cbolton]

I find the typst syntax nicer and more compact: https://typst.app/docs/guides/guide-for-latex-users/#maths

I was initially suprised to see that the typst devs chose to go with their own syntax, but I'm now very happy they did.

[trueismywork]

I would be interested to see how the formula looks for a more complicated equation. For example, Eq 3.12 or 3.31 in the link https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.09346.pdf

[cbolton]

here's 3.31:

  $
  cal(C)(M) = cal(E)_T^t (theta, cal(S)_t)^2 + C_t M_t^(-2/d)
  + cal(E)_T^"PDE" (theta_t, cal(S)_"int")^2 + C_"PDE" M_"int"^(-2/(d+1)) \
  + C_1T^(1/2) [cal(E)_T^"div" (theta, cal(S)_"int") + C_"div" M_"int"^(-1/(d+1))
  + (1+nu)(cal(E)_T^s (theta, cal(S)_s) + C_s M_s^(-1/d))]
  $

Would you have the equivalent LaTeX code for comparison?

[trueismywork]

It should be in the LaTeX sources on the website. This does look much more compact though.

Just to now push it a little. I wonder if I can make the `1/(d+1)` in the superscript be not a real fraction but inline fraction.

[cbolton]

Here are the LaTeX versions from the article source:

  \begin{align}
    \begin{split}
     \mathcal{C}(M) = &\: \Et^t(\theta,\S_t)^2
     + C_t M_t^{-\frac{2}{d}}
     + \Et^\pde(\theta,\S_\inte)^2 +C_\pde 
     M_\mathrm{int}^{-\frac{2}{d+1}}\\&+ C_1{T}^{\frac{1}{2}}
     \bigg[\Et^\divv(\theta,\S_\inte) +C_\divv 
     M_\mathrm{int}^{-\frac{1}{d+1}}+(1+\nu)
     big( \Et^s(\theta,\S_s) + C_s M_s^{-\frac{1}{d}}\big)\bigg],\\
    \end{split}
  \end{align}

and for 3.12:

  \begin{align}
    \begin{split}
    \norm{(u_0)_j-\hu_j(t=0)}_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^d)} &\leq 
    \norm{u_j-\hu_j}_{L^2(\partial \Omega)} \\&\leq 
    \sqrt{\frac{2\max\left\{2h_\Omega,d+1\right\}}
    {\rho_\Omega}}\norm{u_j-\hu_j}_{H^1(\Omega)}\\
    &\leq \sqrt{\frac{2\max\left\{2h_\Omega,d+1\right\}}
    {\rho_\Omega}}C_{1,k,d+1, u_1} \lambda_{1}(N)N^{-k+1}, 
    \end{split}
  \end{align}

Note that these rely on user-defined commands \Et, \pde, \inte, \divv, \S, \hu, for example \renewcommand{\S}{\mathcal{S}} and \newcommand{\Et}{\mathcal{E}_T}.

[trueismywork]

Yup. Much more verbose. However, I must admit, all the unescaped names in Typst leaves me with any eerie feeling. It seems a ground ripe for a name conflict at some point. Or a bottleneck for customization like calligraphic C or script C.

[cbolton]

You can do that by escaping the slash: `1\/(d+1)`

[trueismywork]

Cool

[trueismywork]

Thanks for your effort. With this example, I started testing typst again and it does look to have improved quite a bit. And it is of course extremely fast.

[cbolton]

You're welcome, I hope you'll like it this time!

[ioasuncvinvaer]

should be close to 3.12

  $
  norm((u_0)_j-hat(u)_j (t=0))_(L^2 TT^d) &<= norm(u_j - hat(u)_j)_(L^2 delta Omega) \
  &<= sqrt(2 max {2h_Omega,d+1} / rho_Omega) norm(u_j - hat(u)_j)_(H^1 (Omega)) \
  &<= sqrt(2 max {2h_Omega,d+1} / rho_Omega) C_(1,k,d+1,u_1) lambda_1 (N) N^(-k+1)
  $

[trueismywork]

Thanks for your effort. This was instructive. Seems there's a decent alternative to LaTeX. May be over time it becomes as powerful in all respects.