Symbols talk:LaTeX Commands/ProofWiki Specific

By searching for "operatorname" you get a list of candidates.

As a start, here are some I believe are useful to have: $\operatorname{Aut}$, $\operatorname{Card}$, $\operatorname{Hom}$, $\operatorname{id}$, $\operatorname{ord}$, $\operatorname{pr}$, $\operatorname{Syl}$ --barto (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

I like the direction that this page is taking us. Of course it introduces some idiosyncrasy for our site, but at least it alleviates some of the most pressing concerns regarding left/right. It is also a nice step towards a more functional approach in our application of LaTeX (in the sense that we have e.g. \set now.

Maybe it would be good to bring more exposure to this page, I can imagine that it could fit in the sidebar, editing help, or the LaTeX cheat sheet which is always shown when editing a page. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2018 (EDT)


 * Thanks for the endorsement; I will continue in this vein. --prime mover (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2018 (EDT)

Another useful one would be  for a residue. Caliburn (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2018 (EST)


 * Is that one fairly standard? --prime mover (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2018 (EST)


 * Well the two conventions that I've seen around are $\operatorname {Res} \paren {f, z_0}$ and $\operatorname {Res}_{z_0} \paren {f}$. (as seen on MathWorld) I've always used the former notation, but I see a few usages of simply $\operatorname {Res} \paren {z_0}$ around here. That obviously isn't ideal; you need to add an extra line to establish which function you're talking about, and it becomes awkward in a situation where you want to look at the residue of $\ge 2$ different functions. So, if we're looking for one universal notation, the former is probably better. Caliburn (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2018 (EST)


 * Whatever the specification of function and point involved, $\operatorname{Res}$ as a notation is definitely standard. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2018 (EST)


 * How does this work for you?




 * If we decide to go to the subscripted version, we just need to change the definition. --prime mover (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2018 (EST)


 * Great, thanks! Caliburn (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2018 (EST)

Probability distributions
Seeing as we've got  now, we may as well add others, eg. using the conventions outlined on the definition pages:

Caliburn (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2019 (EDT)


 * Yep, I see no intrinsic reason why not. I'll be on it in due course. --prime mover (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2019 (EDT)


 * ... except can't use "Beta" for obvious reasons, it's "BetaDist" instead. --prime mover (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2019 (EDT)


 * Ah, missed that! Thanks, I'll get on changing them :) Caliburn (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2019 (EDT)


 * All done. Suppose I ought to address the oh so tedious technical notes ... --prime mover (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2019 (EDT)


 * ... and all done. At least, in this prob theory context. --prime mover (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2019 (EDT)