 | | From: | Vikas Goel | | Subject: | Representation question | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:20:38 -0500 (EST) |
|
|
 | I understand that the Cartesian product of sets is represented by the
symbol "\times" in LATEX. I would like to write the following
$\times_k set_k$ (Cartesian product of set_k for all k)
Is it ok to use "\prod" instead of "\times"? Looks like \times
is not seen as a math operator by LATEX and therefore the limits cannot
be placed under/over the operator. \prod is a math operator and so i can
force the limits under/over the operator. (the limits in my
expression are much more complex than those in the expression above; the
expression looks very unwieldy with the limits looking like subscripts)
I would appreciate suggestions
Thanks
Vikas Goel
******************************************************************************
Dept. of Chemical Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Tel: (412) 268 8479 (O)
******************************************************************************
|
|
| | From: | Karthik Thyagarajan | | Subject: | Re: Representation question | | Date: | 18 Jan 2005 21:19:00 -0800 |
|
|
| Hi Vikas,
Why dont you try this and see....
$\times\atop {k}$ $set_k$
the \atop command comes with the standard LATEX package and therefore
you need not include additional class files. The alignment might not be
proper (the cartesian product operator might be too small when compared
to other variables) but it can be reasonably easily rectified.
Karthik
|
|
| | From: | Paul A. Rubin | | Subject: | Re: Representation question | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:50:48 -0500 |
|
|
| Vikas Goel wrote:
> I understand that the Cartesian product of sets is represented by the
> symbol "\times" in LATEX.
That's the "infix" symbol for the product of two sets.
> I would like to write the following
>
> $\times_k set_k$ (Cartesian product of set_k for all k)
>
> Is it ok to use "\prod" instead of "\times"?
Not only ok but preferred (or at least much more common).
> Looks like \times is not
> seen as a math operator by LATEX
Technically, I think it's considered an operator but not a "big operator".
> and therefore the limits cannot be
> placed under/over the operator.
Not without some trickery, anyway.
> \prod is a math operator and so i can
> force the limits under/over the operator. (the limits in my expression
> are much more complex than those in the expression above; the expression
> looks very unwieldy with the limits looking like subscripts)
\prod is what you will find in pretty much any math text (at least any
that I've seen).
-- Paul
|
|
