@repurposer well, if you don't find it, just go ahead and ask. I don't think it's possible (beamer processing is strictly linear in frames, so skipping some is not a problem, but exchanging is), still I may easily be wrong.
@yo' Thanks, I really didn't find anything. I might ask if this turns into a headache rather than a curiosity. Or if I think to do it some time I am not under a deadline!
Apparently TeX wasn't originally considered because "there isn't good Windows support". Heheheh. More seriously and out of curiosity, when did Windows support become a reality? A question for those with serious tenure for TeX; when I started using it four (!!) years ago, Windows support was already well-established.
@SeanAllred I think that in spite of that the image plays a role, though. I mean it appeals to some part of the unconscious of people buying software for corporations, I’m sure!
@SeanAllred About Windows support: since forever? WinEdt is about 20 years old, and there was already support before that (WinEdt being the editor, of course - TeX itself had been ported before).
@SeanAllred I started with TeX on Windows, actually. Typing the source as plain text in Word - the way my stepfather was doing himself and had suggested to me.
@SeanAllred first machine I installed tex on for a colleague in math department was sbtex in around 1987, on a first generation ibm pc with no hard disk but you could run tex and an editor and dvi previewer by shuffling three floppies around the two drives.
@Manuel -- you say "The definition of proof is the “default” with thmtools+amsmath." no, no, no! that's thmtools+amsthm. (amsmath is probably used as well, but it's totally irrelevant to proofs. you may already have learned this -- i'm several hours behind in my reading -- but it's such a frequent mistake that it bears repeating the correction.)
@DavidCarlisle -- lists are the spawn of the devil. or, at least, thinking that every element of a document is a variant of the list is evil in the extreme. much worse than misguided. (but i suppose i should be grateful. if it weren't for all the questions they engender, i might not have a steady job.)
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
\section{Polka loving Platypus}
\cite{companion}\cite{article-full}
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
\bibliography{xampl, biblatex-examples}
\end{document}
Running bibtex on the aux file of the first LaTeX run gives us the following
The style file: alpha....
@ArthurReutenauer -- oh, capybaras are cool! i once attended a lecture by gerald durrell (of the jersey zoo and conservation trust) wherein he described an animal collecting expedition to south america. one of the animals they brought back was a capybara. durrell was also quite talented at producing ad hoc sketches. he drew an enchanting sketch of the capy eating spaghetti, of which, it was discovered, the creature was quite fond. i'm sorry that image never found a place in any of his books.
@DavidCarlisle in a sense, yes. it tries too hard to make the document as structured as possible. In my (albeit limited/hobbyist) experience, this is really restrictive.
@SeanAllred ah yes but that's visible structure so rather different to @barbarabeeton's complaint about latex that it uses an internal list implementation for non-list things like theorems and quote and center,
@SeanAllred not really it's just badly named list should have been called general display environment with a mechanism like '$$' for controlling indentation or not if used mid paragrah but list is a shorter name.
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
\section{Polka loving Platypus}
\cite{companion}\cite{article-full}
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
\bibliography{xampl, biblatex-examples}
\end{document}
Running bibtex on the aux file of the first LaTeX run gives us the following
The style file: alpha....
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\makebox[0.5\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figure/ch3/result_s2/book.jpg}}
\qquad \qquad
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}[c]{cc}
\hline
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{$\sigma$} \\ \hline
method 1 & 0.0 \\
...
