Hot

How can I adjust this code such that the second half of this example will align with the top half at the = and [ ]? I need to have the 'Rearrange...' text remain in between. Thank you! 🙂 \begin{align*} y+3x &= 2 &[1] \\ y+8 &= 7x &[2] \end{align*} Rearrange equation [1] such that $y$ becomes the subject: \begin{align*} y+3x &= 2\\ y &= 2-3x &[1] \end{align*}

The following LaTeX code: % % !BIB TS-program = biber % !BIB program = biber % !TeX spellcheck = en_US % !TeX program = lualatex % % support document for version: v 3.00 Feb 2026 Volker RW Schaa % % \documentclass[luatex]{jacow} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage{subcaption} \usepackage{lipsum} \listfiles \begin{document} \title{My title} \author[1]{author 1} \author[1]{author 2} \affil[1]{affiliation 1} \maketitle \begin{abstract} The abstract should summarize the context, content and conclusions of the paper in less than 200 words. It should be written in the present tense and refer to the work described in the paper. The abstract should be self-contained, without abbreviations, footnotes, or references. It should be formatted as a single paragraph. \end{abstract} \section{Section I} \begin{figure}[htb] \centering \begin{minipage}{0.99\textwidth} \begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}{\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{example-image-a}}\end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}{\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{example-image-b}}\end{subfigure} \vfill \begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}{\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{example-image-c}}\end{subfigure} \begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}{\centering\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{example-image-a}}\end{subfigure} \caption{Another caption.} \label{fig:HITRAP} \end{minipage} \end{figure} \lipsum[1-3] \end{document} Produces this output: Obviously, the text behind/in front of the figure is wrong. How can I make the text correctly surround the figure with the four subfigures and caption? If a solution does not use a minipage environment, this is fine with me.

I'm currently using Automate *alert*-uncovering of lines of an align in beamer to uncover (and alert) lines of an align environment one line at a time. I'm also using An alt fill-in-the-blank with question in the middle to reveal some text on a subsequent overlay. When combining these two approaches, I want the line number to be shown on the first overlay that contains that line. Currently, it is revealed on the last overlay of that line. Here is my example code: \documentclass{beamer} \usepackage{mathtools} \usepackage{amstext} \usepackage{amsthm} \beamerdefaultoverlayspecification{<alert@+|+->} % https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/661230/automate-alert-uncovering-of-lines-of-an-align-in-beamer % https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/611375/automate-uncovering-of-lines-of-an-align-in-beamer \ExplSyntaxOn % mode should be \makeatother by default. % \makeatother \cs_new_eq:NN \_overlayalign_orig_align: \align \cs_new_eq:NN \end_overlayalign_orig_align: \endalign \exp_after:wN \cs_new_eq:NN \exp_after:wN \_overlayalign_orig_starred_align: \cs:w align* \cs_end: \cs_new_eq:NN \end_overlayalign_orig_starred_align: \endalign \seq_new:N \l__overlayalign_linesin_seq \seq_new:N \l__overlayalign_linesout_seq \seq_new:N \l__overlayalign_onelinein_seq \seq_new:N \l__overlayalign_onelineout_seq \cs_new:Npn \overlayalign_add_alert_to_cells:n #1 { \seq_set_split:Nnn \l__overlayalign_linesin_seq { \\ } { #1 } \seq_map_inline:Nn \l__overlayalign_linesin_seq { \seq_clear:N \l__overlayalign_onelineout_seq \seq_set_split:Nnn \l__overlayalign_onelinein_seq { & } { ##1 } \seq_map_indexed_inline:Nn \l__overlayalign_onelinein_seq { \int_compare:nNnTF { ####1 } = { 1 } { \seq_put_right:Nn \l__overlayalign_onelineout_seq { \action<+-|alert@+> { ####2 } } } { \seq_put_right:Nn \l__overlayalign_onelineout_seq { \action<.-|alert@.> { ####2 } } } } \seq_put_right:Nx \l__overlayalign_linesout_seq { \seq_use:Nnnn \l__overlayalign_onelineout_seq { & } { & } { & } } } } \newenvironment{overlayalign}{ \RenewDocumentEnvironment{align}{+b} { \exp_after:wN \cs_set_nopar:Npn \cs:w tagform@ \cs_end: ####1 { \cs:w maketag@@@ \cs_end: { \action<.-|alert@.> { ( \ignorespaces ####1 \unskip \cs:w @@italiccorr \cs_end: ) } } } \overlayalign_add_alert_to_cells:n { ##1 } \begin{_overlayalign_orig_align:} \seq_use:Nnnn \l__overlayalign_linesout_seq { \\ } { \\ } { \\ } \end{_overlayalign_orig_align:} } { } \RenewDocumentEnvironment{align*}{+b} { \overlayalign_add_alert_to_cells:n { ##1 } \begin{_overlayalign_orig_starred_align:} \seq_use:Nnnn \l__overlayalign_linesout_seq { \\ } { \\ } { \\ } \end{_overlayalign_orig_starred_align:} } { } }{ } \ExplSyntaxOff % Source - https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/682151 % Posted by samcarter_is_at_topanswers.xyz, modified by community. See post 'Timeline' for change history % Retrieved 2026-03-30, License - CC BY-SA 4.0 \newlength{\gapwidth} \makeatletter \newcommand{\doblankQ}[1]{% \ifmmode \if@display \settowidth{\gapwidth}{$\displaystyle #1$}% \else \settowidth{\gapwidth}{$#1$}% \fi \else \settowidth{\gapwidth}{#1}% \fi \alert<.(1)>{% \alt<+->{% #1% }{% \vphantom{#1}\smash{\underline{\makebox[\gapwidth]{?}}}% }% }% } \makeatother \begin{document} \begin{frame} \begin{overlayalign} \begin{align} 4(2 + 8) & = 4(2) + 4(\doblankQ{8})\\ x(a + b) & = x(a) + x(b)\\ 4(2 + 8) & = 4(2) + 4(\doblankQ{8}). \end{align} \end{overlayalign} \end{frame} \end{document} It produces the following output. For both lines 1 and 3, I would like the line numbers to be shown one overlay earlier.

I am trying to understand the differences between the fullpage package (e.g. \usepackage[cm]{fullpage}) and the geometry package for setting page margins. From what I see, both seem to adjust margins, but I am not sure: In which situations is it appropriate to use fullpage? When should I prefer geometry instead? Are there any limitations or drawbacks of fullpage compared to geometry? Is one of them considered best practice today? For example, is there any reason to write: \usepackage[cm]{fullpage} instead of: \usepackage[a4paper, margin=2cm]{geometry} I would appreciate a clear explanation of the differences and recommendations for typical use cases.

This is a follow-up question to ltx-talk: \visible command not working as I expected. Code IMPORTANT: I'm not near a TeX distribution at the moment so I don't know if the following will compile but I think this is the code that I tested at home. % lualatex test.tex \DocumentMetadata{ lang = da, tagging = on } \documentclass[ danish ]{ltx-talk} \usepackage{pstricks} \begin{document} \begin{frame}{\visible<1->{Exercise}} \begin{center} \begin{pspicture}(1,1) \visible<2->{\psframe(0,0)(1,1)} \end{pspicture} \end{center} \end{frame} \end{document} Problem The problem described in the first part is now solved after updating ltx-talk but there is still a problem; if I put \visible<n->{...} (for n > 1) inside a pspicture environment, the behaviour with the picture being drawn right from the start of the frame persists.

This example of arabic text (babel with lualatex engine) does not give the desired result, text inside \underline with kashida activated displays an incorrect result. Used font Noto Naskh Arabic. \documentclass{article} \usepackage[bidi=basic]{babel} \babelprovide[import=ar, main, justification = kashida, transforms = kashida.base] {arabic} \babelfont{rm}{Noto Naskh Arabic} \begin{document} \large\bfseries \makebox[4cm][s]{سلام} \underline{\makebox[4cm][s]{سلام}} \end{document}

How to fix this problem pdfTeX warning (dest): name{cite.ZhouXiaofei2021} has been referenced but doe s not exist, replaced by a fixed one

If one produces a bibliography containing entries in Arabic, you are bound to have to use slanted text, no matter how rare this is in Arabic. Producing it in "Amiri", by Khaled Hosny, yields a text that has titles in slanted text just fine: But producing it either in Arial or Noto leaves the slanted text out and Arial is even missing a character: as one can see in this short MWE: \documentclass{article} \begin{filecontents}[overwrite]{arabic.bib} @book{Guillemin-Pollack:Persian, author = {Guillemin, Victor and Pollack, Alan}, title = {\foreignlanguage{arabic}{ﺕﻮﭘﻮﻟﻭﮋﯾ ﺪﯿﻓﺭﺎﻨﺴﯿﻟ ﻢﻗﺪﻣﺎﺘﯾ}}, publisher = {\foreignlanguage{arabic}{ﺱﺎﺤﻟ ﺎﻧﺪﯿﺸﻫ ﺖﻫﺭﺎﻧ }}, note = {\foreignlanguage{arabic}{ﺕﺮﺠﻤﻫ: ﻢﻫﺪﻳ ﻦﺠﻔﻳ ﺥﻭﺎﻫ}}, year = {2006}, pages = {108}, } @book { promenade:ar, AUTHOR = {Ghys, Étienne}, title = {\foreignlanguage{arabic}{ﻥﺯ ﻩﺓ ﺓﺭﺎﻴﻀﻳﺎﺘﻳ}}, note = {\foreignlanguage{arabic}{ﺕﺮﺠﻣﺓ: ﺢﻣﺯﺓ ﺦﻠﻴﻓ}}, PUBLISHER = {ENS Éditions}, address = {Lyon}, YEAR = {2023}, PAGES = {318}, } @book{polya-ar, author = {Pólya, George}, title = {\foreignlanguage{arabic}{ﻚﻴﻓ ﺖﺤﻟ ﻢﺳﺎٔﻟﺓ ﺮﻳﺎﻀﻳﺓ : ﻢﻨﺣﻯ ﺝﺪﻳﺩ ﻒﻳ ﺎﻠﻃﺮﻴﻗﺓ ﺎﻟﺮﻳﺎﻀﻳﺓ }}, publisher = {\foreignlanguage{arabic}{ﺎﻠﻤﻨﻈﻣﺓ ﺎﻠﻋﺮﺒﻳﺓ ﻞﻠﺗﺮﺠﻣﺓ،}}, address = {\foreignlanguage{arabic}{ ﺐﻳﺭﻮﺗ، ﻞﺒﻧﺎﻧ}}, date = {2016}, } \end{filecontents} \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{csquotes} \usepackage[english, bidi=basic-r]{babel} \babelprovide[import=ar, mapdigits, language=Default]{arabic} \babelfont{rm}{Times New Roman} % Default font for LTR \babelfont[arabic]{rm}{Arial} % No italic, missing a character %\babelfont[arabic]{rm}{Noto Naskh Arabic} % No italic %\babelfont[arabic]{rm}{Amiri} % Has upright and slanted \usepackage[backend=biber, style=authoryear, autolang=other, url=false, isbn=false, language=auto]{biblatex} \addbibresource{arabic.bib} \begin{document} \nocite{*} \printbibliography \end{document} Is italics missing in two widely distributed fonts, by design, or something wrong with this LaTeX set-up? Same for the missing character in Arial? Obs: Traditional italics are rare in Arabic, and "slanted" Arabic is almost entirely a modern, Western-influenced invention. Arial and Arial Italic are distributed with Windows and MacOS. For Unix one can install it using sudo apt install ttf-mscorefonts-installer. NoTO is OpenSource and distributed by Google.

How easy is it to do a program for 2s complement? That's changing a number into it. What's the best programming language?

I am using code that makes it so the mini frames are on the same line as the section names. However, when I remove navigation symbols and use \beamergotobutton{}, the mini frames can "jump" (i.e., have vertical shift). The problem does not occur if I use "smoothbars" instead. I have the following example file, modified from Beamer miniframes: side-by-side section names and navigation dots. % Source - https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/88403 % Posted by diabonas, modified by community. Modified again by scottkosty to show problem. % Retrieved 2026-03-29, License - CC BY-SA 3.0 \documentclass[compress]{beamer} % using "smoothbars" does not give the same behavior. \useoutertheme[subsection=false]{miniframes} % remove the navigation bar \setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{} \usepackage{etoolbox} \makeatletter \patchcmd{\slideentry}{\advance\beamer@tempdim by -.05cm}{\advance\beamer@tempdim by\beamer@vboxoffset\advance\beamer@tempdim by\beamer@boxsize\advance\beamer@tempdim by 1.2\pgflinewidth}{}{} \patchcmd{\slideentry}{\kern\beamer@tempdim}{\advance\beamer@tempdim by 2pt\advance\beamer@tempdim by\wd\beamer@sectionbox\kern\beamer@tempdim}{}{} \makeatother \begin{document} \section{Sec 1} \subsection{} \frame{}\frame{hello \beamergotobutton{anything}}\frame{}\frame{} \section{Sec 2} \subsection{} \frame{}\frame{}\frame{}\frame{} \end{document} I get the following output. The problem can be seen on the second image of the sequence. On the second image, the first mini frame dot is shifted upwards for some reason.

As a sort of follow-up to a previous question, why is "every [shape] node" applied after node options? For example, \documentclass[tikz]{standalone} \begin{document} \begin{tikzpicture}[every rectangle node/.style={draw=black, minimum width=1cm,minimum height=1cm}] \node [rectangle] {hello!}; \node [rectangle] at (2.5,0) {hello again!}; \node [rectangle,minimum height=2cm] at (0,-2) {Hello, world!}; \bgroup \tikzset{every rectangle node/.style={draw=black,minimum width=1cm, minimum height=2cm}} \node [rectangle] at (2.5,-2) {Hello, world!}; \egroup \node [rectangle] at (0,-3.75) {goodbye!}; \end{tikzpicture} \end{document} which produces The two "Hello, world!" boxes should look the same, but because of the order in which things are applied, they do not. Creating a group with "every rectangle node" fixes it, as in the example, but is cumbersome. (The bgroup...egroup guards prevent the \tikzset settings from propagating to the rest of the picture, too.) My main question: Why is "every [shape] node" applied after the node options, overriding what is (presumably) the user's choice for that particular object, and is there interest from TikZ developers in changing that default to restore what seems to me to be the more intuitive behavior, that is, applying the "every [shape] node" settings just before the node's optional arguments, so the optional arguments override anything that is applied "globally"? If it would be helpful for me to raise this as an issue on Github, I can do that.

I want to draw a TikZ connector between two cells in a NiceTabular, but the path always appears on top of the rules (hvlines) and the text. If I use \CodeAfter, it's on top, and I can't use \CodeBeforebecause the nodes (i-j) are not recognized. How can I draw this path on the background layer? \documentclass[border = 3pt]{standalone} \usepackage{nicematrix} \usepackage{tikz} \begin{document} \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2} \begin{NiceTabular}{>{\bfseries}*{6}{c}}[ hvlines, corners = NW, ] \RowStyle{\bfseries} & A & B & C & D & E \\ A & & & 1 & 1 & \\ B & & & & 1 & 1 \\ C & 1 & & & & 1 \\ D & 1 & 1 & & & \\ E & & 1 & 1 & & % \CodeAfter \tikz\draw[red, ->] (4-1.east) -| (1-2.south); \end{NiceTabular} \end{document}

How do I modify the \newcommand in the preamble in order for the underlined text to be properly contained by the margins? I got it here: underline omitting the descenders. Also, my code will not compile without the \usepackage{tikz} in the preamble. I don't have a tikzpicture environment in my code. This is bizarre. \documentclass[10pt]{amsart} \usepackage{soul} \usepackage{tikz} \makeatletter \newcommand*{\whiten}[1]{\llap{\textcolor{white}{{\the\SOUL@token}}\hspace{#1pt}}} \DeclareRobustCommand*\myul{% \def\SOUL@everyspace{\underline{\space}\kern\z@}% \def\SOUL@everytoken{% \setbox0=\hbox{\the\SOUL@token}% \ifdim\dp0>\z@ \raisebox{\dp0}{\underline{\phantom{\the\SOUL@token}}}% \whiten{1}\whiten{0}% \whiten{-1}\whiten{-2}% \llap{\the\SOUL@token}% \else \underline{\the\SOUL@token}% \fi}% \SOUL@} \begin{document} In 2007, a team led by Alice Storey analyzed a chicken bone found in El Arenal, Chile, dating it to 1321--1407 CE~---~over a century before Europeans invaded the region, bringing their own chickens. Storey also found that the El Arenal chicken shared a unique genetic mutation with the ancient chicken breeds of the Polynesian Islands in the Pacific. Thus, \myul{Polynesian peoples, not later Europeans, probably first introduced chickens to South America.} \end{document}

I want to replicate something as below: Now is my code, but good with the conjunction (the double path's start and end, and the glitch of double), even with line join=round: \documentclass[tikz,border=5pt]{standalone} \begin{document} \begin{tikzpicture}[line join=round] \coordinate (start) at (0,1.5); \coordinate (end) at (0,0); \draw[magenta] (start) -- ++(3,0) coordinate (doublestart) ++(-.5,-1.5) coordinate (doubleend) -- (end); \draw[cyan,double,double distance=2.5pt] (doublestart) .. controls ++(.25,-.75) and ++(-.3,1) .. (doubleend) ; \end{tikzpicture} \end{document}

Which ressources (and in which order) would you recommend to (re)learn modern LaTeX for an advanced user that learned LaTeX twenty years ago? I have the impression that many things have changed these past years: NewDocumentCommand, hooks, standard packages that became obsolete, useful things that have been moved to the kernel, utf8 support out of the box, … I thus need to update my LaTeX knowledge, but I am unsure to where to start. A document summarising the changes would be invaluable, but might not exist. An alternative would be recent ressources that assume some familiarities with TeX. If none of these exists, an introductory text will do. The emphasis is on learning things that will be useful in the present, but also in the future. Using experimental methods/packages is not a problem if there are good indications that they will be standard at some point in the future. On the opposite, I would like to avoid learning standard methods/packages that are doomed to be obsolete/deprecated soon. For context: I started to use TeX 20 years ago. At the time I read lshort, The LaTeX Companion (2e) and the TeXbook. This allowed me to became an advanced user of LaTeX and produce documents of far better quality than the one produced by some old professors still using deprecated methods and preamble full of outdated packages. With the years passing I started to add more and more packages to my preamble, as fixltx2e, to finally discover that they became obsolete. A lot has happened these past 20 years and it seems reasonable to start anew in order to unlearn old habits and learn new ones.

Okay, a simple question: How do I add multiple authors with multiple affiliations to my Beamer presentation? The simple(but apparently incorrect) way is to use the authblk package and have \author[1]{Fred} \author[2}{Dave} \affil[1]{MI5} \affil[2]{MI6} and that would be it. Use the \maketitle, and that would be it. I don't have any authors. What is going on?

I'm using the Circle[] arrow tip from arrows.meta TikZ library. But I'd like to have the center of the circle at the segment points. Observe below that the circle at the (0,0) is not exactly there. MWE \documentclass{standalone} \usepackage{tikz} \usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta} \begin{document} \begin{tikzpicture} \draw[{Circle[]}-{Circle[]}] (0,0) -- (0.5,1); \draw[{Circle[]}-{Circle[]}] (0,0)+(90:1cm) -- +(-90:1cm); \end{tikzpicture} \begin{tikzpicture} \draw[{Circle[]}-{Circle[]}] (0,0) -- (0.5,1); \draw[{Circle[]}-{Circle[]}] (0,1) -- (0,-1); \end{tikzpicture} \end{document}

I am currently writing a LaTeX document which will involve quite a fair bit of EBNF (Extended Backus-Naur Form). It would be incredibly convenient for the reader of this document if the EBNF was automatically syntax highlighted, but I cannot find a way to do this. If it helps, I am using luaLaTeX and my EBNF snippets are all in external files so I don't have to surround them with a verbatim environment.

My question is arisen from my previous one, and more specific: As Sammy contributed the excellent solution, says: I find nodes to be an unreliable way to draw circles as the size of the circle depends on it's contents and the value of inner sep. I therefore set inner sep=0pt and specified minimum size. I have the following test example further more: \documentclass[tikz,border=5pt]{standalone} \usetikzlibrary{calc} \begin{document} \tikzset{ methodA/.pic={ \draw (0,0) arc[start angle=180,end angle=0,radius=1cm] node[circle,pos=0.75,fill=cyan,inner sep=3pt] {}; }, methodB/.pic={ \draw (0,0) arc[start angle=180,end angle=0,radius=1cm] node[circle,pos=0.75,fill=magenta,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=.35cm] {}; }, methodC/.pic={ \draw (0,0) arc[start angle=180,end angle=0,radius=1cm]; % manual decide the "pos-0.75" \fill[violet] ($(1,0)+(45:1cm)$) circle[radius=3pt]; % but I dislike this method, which need two paths, I would always prefer only one command, if possible.And not always easy to control the "pos" instead of angle... }, } \begin{tikzpicture} \draw[gray] (-2,-2) grid (6,3); \pic {methodA}; \pic [scale=1.5] {methodA}; \draw[thick] (-2,-1) -- pic[pos=.25,scale=1.5] {methodA} (6,-1); \node[font=\ttfamily,anchor=north west] at (-2,3) {(1)inner sep+scale}; \end{tikzpicture} \begin{tikzpicture} \draw[gray] (-2,-2) grid (6,3); \pic {methodB}; \pic [scale=1.5] {methodB}; \draw[thick] (-2,-1) -- pic[pos=.25,scale=1.5] {methodB} (6,-1); \node[font=\ttfamily,anchor=north west] at (-2,3) {(2)minimum size+scale}; \end{tikzpicture} \begin{tikzpicture} \draw[gray] (-2,-2) grid (6,3); \pic {methodC}; \pic [scale=1.5] {methodC}; \draw[thick] (-2,-1) -- pic[pos=.25,scale=1.5] {methodC} (6,-1); \node[font=\ttfamily,anchor=north west] at (-2,3) {(3)path+scale}; \end{tikzpicture} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \begin{tikzpicture} \draw[gray] (-2,-2) grid (6,3); \pic {methodA}; \pic [transform shape,scale=1.5] {methodA}; \draw[thick] (-2,-1) -- pic[pos=.25,transform shape,scale=1.5] {methodA} (6,-1); \node[font=\ttfamily,anchor=north west] at (-2,3) {(4)inner sep+transform shape,scale}; \end{tikzpicture} \begin{tikzpicture} \draw[gray] (-2,-2) grid (6,3); \pic {methodB}; \pic [transform shape,scale=1.5] {methodB}; \draw[thick] (-2,-1) -- pic[pos=.25,transform shape,scale=1.5] {methodB} (6,-1); \node[font=\ttfamily,anchor=north west] at (-2,3) {(5)minimum size+transform shape,scale}; \end{tikzpicture} \begin{tikzpicture} \draw[gray] (-2,-2) grid (6,3); \pic {methodC}; \pic [transform shape,scale=1.5] {methodC}; \draw[thick] (-2,-1) -- pic[pos=.25,transform shape,scale=1.5] {methodC} (6,-1); \node[font=\ttfamily,anchor=north west] at (-2,3) {(6)path,scale}; \end{tikzpicture} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \begin{tikzpicture} \draw[gray] (-2,-2) grid (6,3); \pic {methodA}; \pic [transform shape,scale=1.5] {methodA}; \draw[thick] (-2,-1) -- pic[pos=.25,transform canvas={scale=1.5}] {methodA} (6,-1); \node[font=\ttfamily,anchor=north west] at (-2,3) {(7)inner sep+transform canvas,scale}; \end{tikzpicture} \begin{tikzpicture} \draw[gray] (-2,-2) grid (6,3); \pic {methodB}; \pic [transform shape,scale=1.5] {methodB}; \draw[thick] (-2,-1) -- pic[pos=.25,transform canvas={scale=1.5}] {methodB} (6,-1); \node[font=\ttfamily,anchor=north west] at (-2,3) {(8)minimum size+transform canvas,scale}; \end{tikzpicture} \begin{tikzpicture} \draw[gray] (-2,-2) grid (6,3); \pic {methodC}; \pic [transform shape,scale=1.5] {methodC}; \draw[thick] (-2,-1) -- pic[pos=.25,transform canvas={scale=1.5}] {methodC} (6,-1); \node[font=\ttfamily,anchor=north west] at (-2,3) {(9)path+transform canvas,scale}; \end{tikzpicture} \end{document} which gives: Now let's consider in such case, I want to \pic the following figure: That is actually a logo, which I want to be \pic[scale](or rotate) at other positions for multiple times. Just to plot the figure as \pic, there are at least three methods, I think: \tikzset{ methodA/.pic={ \draw (0,0) arc[start angle=180,end angle=0,radius=1cm] node[circle,pos=0.75,fill=cyan,inner sep=3pt] {}; }, methodB/.pic={ \draw (0,0) arc[start angle=180,end angle=0,radius=1cm] node[circle,pos=0.75,fill=magenta,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=.35cm] {}; }, methodC/.pic={ \draw (0,0) arc[start angle=180,end angle=0,radius=1cm]; % manual decide the "pos-0.75" \fill[violet] ($(1,0)+(45:1cm)$) circle[radius=3pt]; % but I dislike this method, which need two paths, I would always prefer only one command, if possible.And not always easy to control the "pos" instead of angle... }, } In the test result above, their behaviour varied with: simply scale=... transform canvas={scale=...} transform shape,scale=... My question is: I wonder why these scale setting on three approach of \pic are different? (A quite natural follow-up question. IMHO, that is the same one, not asking multiple questions at the same time), when I know "That is actually a logo, which I want to \pic[scale](or rotate) at other positions for multiple times." in advance, how could I select the proper drawing method, to avoid further issues later? Edit My simple opinion on the three approaches without considering that it would be \pic and scale: I would prevent two \path method(method C), which I think that is not elegant syntax enough compared with the others With node on the path and control the radius, just with one command, I prefer these two(method A and B) As for trade-off between inner sep=0pt,minimum size=10pt and inner sep=1cm, I think the first one is better, for the sake of better semantics of a circle node...

Let me know if this question is too broad and I will try to narrow it. So, I am trying to learn expl3, and I am using Gemini, a code project and various articles as my tools. The main article I've been reading is this one, and it has helped. So has Gemini. Gemini is making a lot of mistakes and causing confusion, but for some of the basics, it has helped me a lot (I noticed my ability to understand the linked-to article improved after talking with Gemini). But now, Gemini is seemingly no longer able to teach me, because I've reached the end of its more-accurate-than-not region. It cannot precisely and rigorously explain how TeX does macro expansion. As a result, I do not understand it. Gemini seems to have a bias to unnecessarily utilize expansion signatures and use/eval functions (and therefore it has to utilize more _protected and \exp_not:n functions), which is really making a mess of its code. The code compiles correctly, but with massive amounts of unnecessary pre-expansion. And that is thusly making me really confused about when and why we change the order of expansion. [BTW, perhaps unneccesary expansion combined with nonetheless relatively advanced code is a good indicator of AI-written LaTeX?] So, for context, here is the extent of my understanding till now, taken from the linked-to article: \newcommand{\cmda}{abcd} \uppercase{abcd\cmda} %ABCDabcd So, in this example, we're shown that using \uppercase here does NOT produce the output ABCDABCD. This is explained through the fact that \uppercase is acting on letters, and leaves control sequences unchanged. Now, \cmda is control sequence, but its defintion is a string of letters. So, if we could pre-expand \cmda, then we could get the result ABCDABCD. The article explains two ways to do this, but I'm more interested in why we have to do this in the general case. And I wonder if the above example gives me a general understanding of when expansion is needed. So, when we have a function and we DON'T need to expand it, is it simply because the control sequence is "readable/expandable" by that function, and the function is thusly able to act on its definition? My current understanding can be summed up as this: If you want the function to act on a control sequence's definition, and if the function doesn't expand its input for you, you have to expand the input for it. How to expand depends on how many layers you want to expand, and what the control sequence is (function or variable). Knowing when to pre-expand (and knowing when to protect from pre-expansion) thus reduces to knowing which functions don't, and do, expand for you. I have a feeling this is insufficient, however. Like it isn't a fully general explanation. And even if it is general, it seems imprecise. I would like to be able to break things down into the eyes-vs-mouth-vs-stomach analogy and understand how TeX parses the text and when it expands each component thereof. I currenly have an idea of the mouth expanding everything with a default order, and then the text reaches the stomach fully expanded, and there it gets converted by the PDF engine into points on paper. Understanding this pipeline at high level of detail and rigor would make everything a lot simpler to me. The core idea of expansion and the ordering thereof is simple, but the devil is in the details.

I'm trying to make a simple topic-comment environment. The code here accomplishes this, except for the very first entry. Making the ; active is straightforward, but does not seem to take effect for the first line of the environment. Why and what am I missing? \documentclass{article} \usepackage[textwidth=3in]{geometry} \usepackage{xparse} \newlength{\ingindent} \begingroup \lccode`~=`\^^M \lowercase{% \endgroup%% \NewDocumentCommand{\topic}{s o u{~}}% #3=the line {% \hangindent3em \leftskip\ingindent \bfseries\sffamily #3\par \normalfont \addtolength{\ingindent}{1em}% }% }% \NewDocumentCommand{\comment}{}{% comment in italics \leavevmode\normalfont\itshape } \begingroup \catcode`;=\active \gdef\changesc{\let;=\comment} \endgroup \NewDocumentEnvironment{showit}{O{}}{% \parskip1ex \catcode`;=\active \changesc \obeylines \everypar={\topic} }{} \parindent0pt \begin{document} \thispagestyle{empty} \begin{showit} ;This is a start without a topic and the <semicolon> is apparently not yet active~--~why? Adding \string\leavevmode\ or \string\null\ before the semicolon does work topic 1 topic 2; with some comment topic 3; a comment with actually rather a lot of bla bla bla ;a comment without topic, and the <semicolon> is active topic 4; and a concluding comment a lonely topic \end{showit} \end{document}

I am preparing slides for a talk, and everything looks good. However, I want the numbering of my Definitions, Theorems, and Propositions to be aligned with the sections and to be non-repeating, something like this: Section 1: Theorem 1.1 Definition 1.2 Proposition 1.3 Theorem 1.4 Section 2: Theorem 2.1 Definition 2.2 In my current version, the theorems, definitions, and propositions are numbered sequentially (1, 2, 3, …). How can I fix my current code? Here is the relevant block of my code: \documentclass[]{beamer} \usepackage{tikz} \usepackage{amsthm,amsmath} % ------------------------ % Unified block style % ------------------------ \setbeamercolor{block title}{bg=blue, fg=white} \setbeamercolor{block body}{bg=blue!20, fg=black} % ------------------------ % Custom theorem style using plain 'block' % ------------------------ \makeatletter \def\th@unified{% \normalfont \def\inserttheoremblockenv{block} % use plain block } \makeatother \theoremstyle{unified} % ------------------------ % Single counter for all numbered environments % ------------------------ \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition} % shares the counter % ------------------------ % Unnumbered environments % ------------------------ \newtheorem*{remark}{Remark} \newtheorem*{question}{Question} \newtheorem*{openquestion}{Open question} % ------------------------ % Beamer settings % ------------------------ \setbeamertemplate{theorems}[numbered] \mode<presentation>{\usetheme{Madrid}} \setbeamertemplate{caption}[numbered] \setbeamertemplate{bibliography item}{\insertbiblabel} % ------------------------ % Title info % ------------------------ \title[XX]{XX} \author{XX} \institute[]{XX} \date{XX} \begin{document} \end{document}

I use a template that utilizes the document class scrreprt and thus the KOMA-Script and 1.5x line spacing. Following given guidelines, paragraphs should be separated by vertical spacing and not by indentation, which is why I put the option parskip=full- in the preamble. In order to adopt the appearance of lists to the given guidelines, I included the package enumitem and set the parameters topsep, partopsep, parsep, and itemsep, accordingly. Almost everything works as intended, with one exception: The vertical spacing above and below lists appears bigger than intended and should be smaller. I have prepared an MWE that describes the desired result. How can the MWE be modified, so that the issue regarding the vertical spacing is resolved? Changing topsep=0pt to topsep=-18pt resolves this issue only for below the list and topsep=-36pt only for above the list, despite them having a symmetric effect according to both answers on \topsep, \itemsep, \partopsep, \parsep - what do they each mean (and what about the bottom)?. Thanks in advance! P.S.: The lists without the KOMA-Script also do not fit the given guidelines, yet, it should be mentioned that the KOMA-Script changes the formatting of lists (this behavior is mentioned in its documentation) on top. MWE: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt,parskip=full-]{scrreprt} \usepackage[left=3.5cm,right=3cm,top=3.5cm,bottom=2.5cm]{geometry} \pagenumbering{gobble} \usepackage[onehalfspacing]{setspace} \usepackage{enumitem} \setlist{topsep=0pt,partopsep=18pt,parsep=18pt,itemsep=-18pt}%alternatively:topsep=-18pt or topsep=-36pt \begin{document} I want to write about \begin{enumerate} \item this, and \item that, \end{enumerate} without ending the paragraph, so there should appear 1.5x line spacing (= 18pt) above, within, and below the list, but not the increased vertical spacing of a full line that is reserved for the space between the end and the beginning of two paragraphs as follows. \par Furthermore, a list usually has something to do with its preceding and/or following text and hence is put in the same paragraph like in the example above or here, where it is preceded by a colon: \begin{enumerate} \item A sentence about this, and \item one about that \end{enumerate} ends right here. However, a list could potentially also have nothing to do with its preceding and/or following text and hence they are put into seperate paragraphs -- of which one ends with this sentence -- and show the increased vertical spacing of a full line. \par \begin{enumerate} \item A sentence on these. \item A sentence on those. \end{enumerate} \par This here is about something totally different, hence the new paragraph. Last but not least, one should not forget about paragraphs within an item of a list, as they should be seperated by the increased vertical spacing of a full line: \begin{enumerate} \item The first paragraph of the first item. \par The second paragraph of the first item. \item The second item. \end{enumerate} This line concludes the MWE. \end{document}

I am making a horizontal tree diagram and want the lines (or part of them) to look different in different parts of the diagram. I want to use continuous and dashed lines. Below is an example of what I want to be able to do. I want the lines to be dashed near the root and continuous as they get close to the nodes. The lines can be slightly curved or not, but I specifically do not want them to meet at the root. And a MWE: \documentclass[tikz,border=2mm]{standalone} \usetikzlibrary{trees} \begin{document} \begin{tikzpicture}[ grow=right, level distance=3cm, sibling distance=1.5cm, every node/.style={thick, minimum size=8mm} ] \node {Root} child [edge from parent path={(\tikzparentnode.east) -- (\tikzchildnode.west)}, dashed] { node {C} } child [edge from parent path={(\tikzparentnode.east) -- (\tikzchildnode.west)}, dashed] { node {B} child [edge from parent path={(\tikzparentnode.east) -- (\tikzchildnode.west)}, solid] { node {B3} } child [edge from parent path={(\tikzparentnode.east) -- (\tikzchildnode.west)}, solid] { node {B2} } child [edge from parent path={(\tikzparentnode.east) -- (\tikzchildnode.west)}, solid] { node {B1} } } child [edge from parent path={(\tikzparentnode.east) -- (\tikzchildnode.west)}, dashed] { node {A} }; \end{tikzpicture} \end{document}

I would like the baseline of "with nitrogen" to be aligned with the bottom edge of the square shaded gray. The bottom of the tail (descender) in the "g" is currently setting the baseline for the phrase. I tried using \makebox[0pt]. Same edit for the other node. \documentclass[10pt]{amsart} \usepackage{tikz} \begin{document} \begin{tikzpicture}[x=1cm,y=1.5cm] %The key is drawn. The keys in other bar graphs have sample regions that are squares with edge length 0.25 centimeters. As the vertical dimension is scaled by 150%, the heights of the sample squares must be scaled by 2/3. \path[fill=gray] (6, {2 + (2/3)*0.125}) -- (6.25, {2 + (2/3)*0.125}) -- (6.25, {2 + (2/3)*0.375}) -- (6, {2 + (2/3)*0.375}) -- cycle; \draw (6, {2 +(2/3)*0.125}) -- (6.25, {2 +(2/3)*0.125}) -- (6.25, {2+(2/3)*0.375}) -- (6, {2+(2/3)*0.375}) -- cycle; \node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0, font=\small] at (6.375, {2 + (2/3)*0.125}){\makebox[0pt][l]{with nitrogen}}; \path[fill=black] (6, {2 - (2/3)*0.125}) -- (6.25, {2 - (2/3)*0.125}) -- (6.25, {2 - (2/3)*0.375}) -- (6, {2 - (2/3)*0.375}) -- cycle; \draw (6, {2 - (2/3)*0.125}) -- (6.25, {2 - (2/3)*0.125}) -- (6.25, {2 - (2/3)*0.375}) -- (6, {2 - (2/3)*0.375}) -- cycle; \node[anchor=south west, inner sep=0, font=\small] at (6.375, {2 - (2/3)*0.375}){without nitrogen}; \draw (5.875, {2 - (2/3)*0.5}) -- (5.875, {2 + (2/3)*0.5}) -- (8.85, {2 + (2/3)*0.5}) -- (8.85, {2 - (2/3)*0.5}) -- cycle; \end{tikzpicture} \end{document}

In a tabular environment, text needs to be placed symmetrically besides a drawing: Code: \documentclass[a4paper]{article} \usepackage{graphicx} \begin{document} \begin{tabular}[t]{@{}c@{\hspace{0.5cm}} l@{}} \includegraphics[width=0.9cm]{example-image-a} & \begin{minipage}[t]{10cm} % [t] ensures top alignment line 1\\ line 2\\ \end{minipage} \end{tabular} \end{document} Output: Text is hanging below the image. How to place the image and text side by side symmetrically?

First a minimal working sample is as follows. \documentclass{ctexbook} \usepackage[bidi=default,main=chinese,provide=*]{babel} \babelprovide{hebrew} \babelfont[hebrew]{rm}[Scale=MatchUppercase, ItalicFont={NewCM10-Italic.otf}, BoldFont={NewCM10-Bold.otf}, BoldItalicFont={NewCM10-BoldItalic.otf}]{NewCM10-Regular.otf} \babelprovide{persian} \babelfont[persian]{rm}[Scale=MatchUppercase, ItalicFont={ParsiMatn-Italic.ttf}, BoldFont={ParsiMatn-Bold.ttf}, BoldItalicFont={ParsiMatn-BoldItalic.ttf}]{ParsiMatn-Regular.ttf} \usepackage{amsthm} \theoremstyle{theorem} \newtheorem{theorem}{定理} \begin{document} \foreignlanguage{hebrew}{נ. ניסן} \foreignlanguage{persian}{أهل السنة} \begin{theorem} 测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字 \end{theorem} \begin{proof} 测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字 \end{proof} \begin{proof}[解答] 测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字测试文字 \end{proof} \end{document} As you see, in order to input some non-Chinese texts I invoke the babel package, and to solve the problem in the link I add main=chinese,provide=* before the babel package. But it makes the indentation of the proof name be not right, while to my surprise the the indentation of the proof name resetted is right. Note that I have to use XeLaTeX for some special settings, and that I use MacTex 2026 the latest version, and the problem comes out after I update it. Is there is any way to fix this when I still add bidi=default,main=chinese,provide=* before the babel package?

The spec: Any number of (arbitrary) color bands that we specify filling text Stroked outline Same positioning as normal text No extra text in the pdf stream (for copy-paste behavior you would expect) Ok and we're back to it! Previous versions have led here. None of the solutions so far have checked every box. We got as far as implementing 1-3. This is why this question is not a duplicate of the linked questions. None of the linked solutions implement 4 which is important to me. They all draw the text multiple times which unfortunately shows up in the pdf stream. I think that it is because for each \node the text is written again, This final version should have completely normal text-selection behavior, i.e, only ONE copy of the text. I have a new macro that attempts to use \accsupp to hide the extra copies of the text, but it does not work when I test it on Sumatra. I think that it does fix it for screen readers though which is why I kept it. It will however work when I try it in random other pdf readers like chrome. What I really want here is something that somehow only writes the text once, while looking exactly as this does, so that it should work in almost all pdf viewers. % !TEX TS-program = lualatex \documentclass{article} \usepackage{tikz} \usetikzlibrary{calc} \usepackage{pgfplots} \usepackage{accsupp} \usepackage{pdfrender} \newcommand{\TextShadeContour}[3]{% \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline] % Define reference node invisibly — needed for clip coordinates \node[anchor=base, inner xsep=0pt, inner ysep=.5pt, outer sep=0pt, opacity=0] (n) at (0,0) {#3}; % Scope contains all the cumulative clips from the loop \BeginAccSupp{method=plain,ActualText={}}% \begin{scope}% \foreach \c in {1,2,...,#1}{% \pgfplotscolormapaccess[1:#1]{\c}{ShadingColor}% \definecolor{colortemp}{rgb}{\pgfmathresult}% \pgfmathparse{1-(\c-1)/#1}% \clip let \p1=(n.south west), \p2=(n.north east), in% (n.south west) rectangle (\x2, \y1+\pgfmathresult*\y2-\pgfmathresult*\y1);% \node[colortemp, anchor=base, inner xsep=0pt, inner ysep=.5pt, outer sep=0pt]% {#3};% }% \end{scope}% \EndAccSupp{}% % Stroke is now outside the scope, so clipping is fully reset \node[anchor=base, inner xsep=0pt, inner ysep=.5pt, outer sep=0pt] at (0,0) {\textpdfrender{ TextRenderingMode=Stroke, LineWidth=0.5pt, StrokeColor=#2, MiterLimit=0.5, LineJoinStyle=Round }{#3}}; \end{tikzpicture}% }% \begin{document} \pgfplotsset{colormap={ShadingColor}{rgb255=(112,128,144) rgb255=(255,159,101)}}\TextShadeContour{3}{black}{13}\\ \end{document} The question is (maybe) how to use pdf literal commands to do it. My own knowledge of pdf internals is non-existent. Or it's about drawing the path of the text from within tikz vs. the actual text. Hopefully we don't have to use ghostscript or anything funky. Ideally this will just work in a way where we define the macro once and then use it. I know a pdf file can contain this. I can prove it with this typst MWE. If you run it and copy paste the whole line, it will do it just as we want (stuff and other stuff): #let multicolor_outline(content, colors) = { let grad = gradient.linear(..colors, angle:270deg) set text(stroke: 0.3pt, fill: grad.sharp(colors.len())) box(content) } #multicolor_outline([stuff], (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple)) and #multicolor_outline([other stuff], (purple, blue)) Previous discussion (which does not involve functional copy-pasting): Question 1 Question 2

I have to automatially switch from two-multicols and onecolumn mode with \chapter, here below is what I was after: \documentclass[openany]{book} \usepackage{multicol} \usepackage{lipsum} \begin{document} \chapter{AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA} \begin{multicols}{2} \section{11} \lipsum[1-3] \section{22} \lipsum[1-3] \end{multicols} \chapter*{BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB} \begin{multicols}{2} \section*{11} \lipsum[1-3] \section*{22} \lipsum[1-3] \end{multicols} \chapter{CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC} \begin{multicols}{2} \section{11} \lipsum[1-3] \section{22} \lipsum[1-3] \end{multicols} \end{document} However, I want to hook to switch the one/two-columns with \chapter, I tried with: \documentclass{book} \usepackage{multicol} \usepackage{lipsum} \makeatletter \AddToHook{cmd/chapter/before}{\ifnum\col@number>1\end{multicols}\fi\clearpage} \AddToHook{cmd/chapter/after}{\begin{multicols}{2}} \AtEndDocument{\ifnum\col@number>1\end{multicols}\fi} \makeatother \begin{document} \chapter{AAAA} \lipsum[1-3] \chapter*{BBBB} \lipsum[1-3] \chapter{CCCC} \lipsum[1-3] \end{document} but it complained with: ! Argument of \hook_use:nnw has an extra }. <inserted text> \par l.13 \chapter {AAAA} ? Looks like there exists some group mismatch ;-( I wonder why this happened? And how to achieve what I want?

I want to use a \foreach loop to define a series of commands of the form \bf\l where \l runs through the uppercase letters of the alphabet and \bf\l evaluates to \mathbf{\l}. This is so that I don't have to manually define \bfA, \bfB, etcetera at the start of all my documents. I've tried the following setup (patched together from Defining a newcommand, with variable name, inside another newcommand): \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath,pgffor} \foreach \l in {A,B,C,D} { \expandafter\newcommand\csname bf\l\endcsname{ \mathbf{\l}% } } \begin{document} $\bfA$ $\bfB$ $\bfC$ $\bfD$ \end{document} It resulted in four errors, namely that the four commands are undefined. Where am I going wrong, and why does this not work?