Ask Your Question

Revision history [back]

click to hide/show revision 1
initial version

Playing around a bit led to this example: ask60841UglyUnion001.odt. (%Ux222A must be defined under 'Tools' > 'Catalogue'.)

But: There are standards. Why not regard them?

Playing around a bit led to this example: ask60841UglyUnion001.odt. (%Ux222A must be defined under 'Tools' > 'Catalogue'.)

But: There are standards. Why not regard them?

(Editing:)

I posted an answer here despite the fact that I do not need 'Math' much since I am retired. I simply am still interested. I would like a well working formula editor as part of free office suites, and I remember the problems coming up when I started to migrate many formulae more than 15 yeras ago from (reduced) MathType in Word to StarOffice. Bugs I experienced that time are still present. See https://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/60133/how-to-get-better-scalable-bracket/ where I even offer sponsoring. There was not get a single comment on that. I feel Math to be a kind of orphan in the community. (I did not go https://freedomsponsors.org/issue/add, however.)

Back to the subject: As the new example (See attached; from H. Schubert, Topologie) should demonstrate, the automatism treating a unary operand differently is working rather well. I do not feel any need to change the style.

ask60856RangeableOperators002.pdf.fake.odf

ask60856RangeableOperators002.odf

Playing around a bit led to this example: ask60841UglyUnion001.odt. (%Ux222A must be defined under 'Tools' > 'Catalogue'.)

But: There are standards. Why not regard them?

(Editing:)

I posted an answer here despite the fact that I do not need 'Math' much since I am retired. I simply am still interested. I would like a well working formula editor as part of free office suites, and I remember the problems coming up when I started to migrate many formulae more than 15 yeras ago from (reduced) MathType in Word to StarOffice. Bugs I experienced that time are still present. See https://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/60133/how-to-get-better-scalable-bracket/ where I even offer sponsoring. There was not get a single comment on that. I feel Math to be a kind of orphan in the community. (I did not go https://freedomsponsors.org/issue/add, however.)

Back to the subject: As the new example (See attached; from H. Schubert, Topologie) should demonstrate, the automatism treating a unary operand differently is working rather well. I do not feel any need to change the style.

ask60856RangeableOperators002.pdf.fake.odf

ask60856RangeableOperators002.odf

Playing around a bit led to this example: ask60841UglyUnion001.odt. (%Ux222A must be defined under 'Tools' > 'Catalogue'.)

But: There are standards. Why not regard them?

(Editing:)

I posted an answer here despite the fact that I do not need 'Math' much since I am retired. I simply am still interested. I would like a well working formula editor as part of free office suites, and I remember the problems coming up when I started to migrate many formulae more than 15 yeras ago from (reduced) MathType in Word to StarOffice. Bugs I experienced that time are still present. See https://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/60133/how-to-get-better-scalable-bracket/ where I even offer sponsoring. There was not get a single comment on that. I feel Math to be a kind of orphan in the community. (I did not go https://freedomsponsors.org/issue/add, however.)

Back to the subject: As the new example (See attached; from H. Schubert, Topologie) should demonstrate, the automatism treating a unary operand differently is working rather well. I do not feel any need to change the style.

ask60856RangeableOperators002.odf