Definition talk:Transitive Closure (Relation Theory)/Union of Compositions

You know what mathop is really for? Things like this:
 * $\displaystyle \mathop{\sum\sum}_{(i,j) \in S} i^2 j^2$

If we stick it in various places to take care of some MathJax issue, a MathJax update may mess it all up... --Dfeuer (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Feel free to go through all the instances of where "mathop" is used and present your recommendations as to what should replace it. If you can, back your findings up with quotes from the appropriate user guides and the like, so as to explain the intended use of the various constructs. It occurs to me that this is an exercise that was never formally done, which reflects badly upon me considering my background. --prime mover (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I just re-read this after leaving it alone, and it still pisses me off. Apparently you haven't tried anything. The behaviour of MathJax we use in subscripts for operators is actually identical to that of (La)TeX. The "issue" appears in TeX as well: it's a feature. We overruled it because it is considered to be looking better. It won't change in future MathJax updates (Ok, it is highly, highly unlikely). The resolution works, and it works precisely as in TeX. What is your point?! &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I misunderstood the situation. It seems an ugly hack, but I guess if you really like it that's fine. --Dfeuer (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 't Is admittedly a hack, that I acknowledge. I introduced it back when I didn't know very much about TeX (i.e. I didn't know about mathbin and mathrel) and I thought this was a bona fide fix. But while it is a hack, it does work as in TeX and is therefore not likely to break.


 * We were probably both at fault, not acknowledging all presuppositions we had. I bury my war axe :). Should you find a more canonical solution, feel free to point me to it. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)