CZ:Formatting mathematics
this page: CZ policy (either established by consensus or under debate) for how to format mathematics in CZ articles
Issues for all <math> environments
Use <math> environments instead of HTML markup
Proposed policy: Always use a <math> environment when typesetting mathematics (for example, whenever a $ environment would be used in TeX), rather than using by-hand italics or HTML markup. (discuss this)
The in integrals
Proposed policy: Insert a "thin space" \, before any -type object in an integral or differential; let the <math> environment typeset it in normal math font, rather than altering it. (discuss this)
Proposed good examples: and
Proposed bad examples: and
Issues for display <math> environments
Indentation
Policy: Use a single colon to indent a displayed equation. (discuss this)
Good example:
Bad example:
Issues for inline <math> environments
Use of \scriptstyle
To determine: Whether to use \scriptstyle to reduce the size of PNG-rendered inline math formulas. (discuss this)
Example with \scriptstyle: The identity is cool.
Example without \scriptstyle: The identity is cool.
Example in which alignment is bad when scriptstyle is not used: .
- The base, e, should be aligned with the surrounding text; the superscript should be higher.
Size problems: The letters in look comically gigantic on some browsers.
Fractions
Writing
looks good when "displayed", but when "inline", 3/4 may be better.
In superscripts
looks better than
In fractions-within-fractions, a similar issue is raised:
versus
Proper non-TeX mathematical notation
Italicizing variables bot not digits and not punctuation matches TeX style. Spacing before and after "+" or "=" or the like matches TeX style.
- (a2 + b2) = c2
Issues for the text
Capitalizing theorem names
Proposed policy: Do not capitalize names of theorems for that reason alone, either when referring to them in prose or when creating new CZ articles. Normally capitalized words within theorem names should still be capitalized. (discuss this)
Proposed good example: The fundamental theorem of covering spaces should never be called Martin's theorem, because Martin isn't a topologist.
Proposed bad example: The Fundamental Theorem of Covering Spaces should never be called Martin's Theorem, because Martin isn't a topologist.