i was wondering if there's an alternative mathjax code for something like $\exists L\in\mathbb R\forall\epsilon>0$ such that the spaces around $\in$ is compressed; typically, I manually add spaces within the string of quantifiers to make it more readable, but that's tedious/inefficient... In short: is there an alternative code for \in that doesn't automatically create a gulf around the symbol? Thanks.

@RyanG Have you considered using a macro (\newcommand) to avoid repetitively doing the same thing?

Setting aside the question whether reducing spaces there is good or bad thing.

not really, but i shall. is there a native alternative to '\in` though?

I doubt it, but maybe somebody else knows. (To be honest, I have difficulty seeing why somebody would actually want this - OTOH I have to admit that I do not know much about LaTeX.)

(i hadnt considered that it would be disadvantageous). isnt this ugly and unfriendly to read? $$\exists L\in\mathbb R\forall\epsilon>0\exists\delta>0\forall$$ the first two characters seem disconnected from the fourth, which instead seems connect to the 5th and 6th.

What I meant by macros is that you define something like, for example, $\newcommand{\inn}{....}$ at the beginning of your posts. And then, to have the "compressed" versions of $\in$ you would write L\inn\mathbb R rather than L\in\mathb R.

yes i understand how macros work -)

I would typically write this as $$(\exists L\in\mathbb R)(\forall\epsilon>0)(\exists\delta>0).$$

Basically, that's what I am used to. And, of course, it is also matter of personal preference.

In any case, it's time to me to go to work - I have just popped in after I saw a new message here.

ah ok. i dislike the parenthesis because those are unnecessary in object language.....Now i see a reason to use them while LaTeXing.

@MartinSleziak thanks; have a good day!

When somebody says that they dislike parentheses, my knee-jerk reaction is whether that's because of Lisp.

Let's hope that somebody notices your message and has better advice to offer.