@HaraldHanche-Olsen Yes, noun phrase. Sorry (off at a concert).
@HaraldHanche-Olsen Well there are no 'firm grammatical rules' (until you get to a very deep level of abstraction). There are only individual grammars, with similarities among groups of speakers and social agreement (usually based on the societal power structure) on which groups' grammars are the most highly valued. The rules of these grammars become what you're calling a 'firm grammatical rule'.
@HaraldHanche-Olsen In the case of the "We have that ..." construction, I agree with your supposition that that this is an idiom with quite restricted use that has come out of mathematics and philosophy (as my informal survey of my collection of linguistics PDFs attests). There's no principled reason why it should be ungrammatical for me (or you), it just is.
@UlrikeFischer: let me explain a bit: in v4, paths are all normalized, so we have a canonical reference to them. However, I usually use the relative information by design and leave the other one as "for the last resort".
@UlrikeFischer Also, it's not exactly like that. We can change the current directory on a very specific situation, inside a subshell, so subsequent calls are not done there.
It's OK to ask on chat but you should not expect an answer (although you may get one anyway).
The Q&A site is designed for asynchronous help, you ask a question and it stays visible and can be answered by anyone at any time that they feel convenient.
If you ask in chat then although the archive...
So I have to type this equation: $ \sigma \rho = {}^{\sigma}\!\rho \delta(\sigma, \rho) $. In my view, \rho and \delta look much too close together, it looks much better if I insert a space: $ \sigma \rho = {}^{\sigma}\!\rho \, \delta(\sigma, \rho) $ . Would it be bad style to do so, because it breaks consistency?
@JohnDorian I don't know what it means but if the prefixed rho is some kind of function, an alternative to adding space by hand would be to use \mathop{{}^{\sigma}\!\rho} so it gets operator spacing (like \log)
@DavidCarlisle Actually \sigma, \rho, {}^{\sigma}\!\rho and \delta(\sigma, \rho) are just four real numbers which are multiplied (well actually they are elements of some group but that doesn't matter here).
@DavidCarlisle And that is also the reason why I want that on the RHS of the equation it becomes more apparent that {}^{\sigma}\!\rho is one thing and \delta(\sigma, \rho) is another thing, that's what the space should be for
Also, if the space is included, the space between \sigma and \rho on the LHS looks about the same as the space between {}^{\sigma}\!\rho and \delta(\sigma, \rho) on the RHS
@JohnDorian in the end TeX is a typesetting system not a computer algebra system. If you need to add space to make things more readable then you need to add space (math journals do that all the time (even if they don't like authors doing it:-)
@marmot @PauloCereda @samcarter : What about this?
3
Moving frame of reference perhaps better suited for looping animation?
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{animate}
\usepackage{tikzducks}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes.callouts,calc}
\newcommand{\DuckSong}[1]{\ifcase#1
All
\or
my
\or
little
\or
ducklings,
\or
Swimming
\or
in
\or
the
\or
lake,
\or
Heads
\or
dunk
\or
in
\or
the
\or
water,
\or
As
\or
little
\or
tails
\or
do
\or
shake.
\or
All
\or
my
\or
little
\or
ducklings,
\or
Swimming
\or
in
\or
the
\or
lake,
\or
Heads
\or
dunk
\or
in
\or
the
\or
water,
\or
As
\or
little
\or
tails
\or
do
\or
shake.
\fi
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
@AlexG Very nice, but I would still put the wave before the duck (i.e., nearer the viewer). Swimming ducks swim in the water, after all, not above it. The next challenge could be to make the text scroll through the speech bubble. One might actually be able to read it that way.
@JohnDorian Maybe complete it with the example. As you see from the picture, the middle part of the stem is too thick and the tail is higher than needed.
@JohnDorian Maybe some TikZ expert can sort out the matter.
@marmot @samcarter @UlrikeFischer @PauloCereda : Doubling the number of frames; changing call-outs every forth frame thanks to some modulo computation:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{animate}
\usepackage{tikzducks}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes.callouts,calc}
\newcommand{\DuckSong}[1]{\ifcase#1
All
\or
my
\or
little
\or
ducklings,
\or
Swimming
\or
in
\or
the
\or
lake,
\or
Heads
\or
dunk
\or
in
\or
the
\or
water,
\or
As
\or
little
\or
tails
\or
do
\or
shake.
\fi
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\usepackage[active,tightpage]{preview}
\makeatletter
\def\@anim@@newframe{\@ifstar\@anim@newframe\@anim@newframe}
\def\@anim@newframe{\end{preview}\begin{preview}}
@marmot @samcarter @UlrikeFischer @PauloCereda : Doubling the number of frames; changing call-outs every forth frame thanks to some modulo computation:
@AlexG -- trivial suggestion ... now that the size of the speech bubble is persistent, i think moving ducky a bit to the right would give a more balanced appearance. (it is delightful!)
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{animate}
\usepackage{tikzducks}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes.callouts,calc}
\newcommand{\DuckSong}[1]{\ifcase#1
All
\or
my
\or
little
\or
ducklings,
\or
Swimming
\or
in
\or
the
\or
lake,
\or
Heads
\or
dunk
\or
in
\or
the
\or
water,
\or
As
\or
little
\or
tails
\or
do
\or
shake.
\fi
}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\usepackage[active,tightpage]{preview}
\makeatletter
\def\@anim@@newframe{\@ifstar\@anim@newframe\@anim@newframe}
\def\@anim@newframe{\end{preview}\begin{preview}}
@marmot The nice ducks which where inspired by a questions by @CarLaTeX and the fascination for ducks of @PauloCereda and created with the help of so many kind user like @UlrikeFischer and @egreg and many others ... Oh my, the Oscar speech will be quite long
Please reconsider your decision on voting buttons
The voting buttons are an ever-present aspect of a bunch of sites' graphical identity, and they pull a disproportionate amount of weight in making the theming feel like a complete skin rather than just some surface-level attributes. My main site ...
@EmilioPisanty More worrisome is the fact that we may lose our beautiful site theme altogether. @JosephWright Do you have any inside knowledge of this?
@EmilioPisanty I'm not sure what you mean. We worked hard initially on the design of the site, and it looks very nice. If every site is generically similar, I don't think that's a good thing, and simply keeping site specific buttons won't really help that.
As noted, this is a terrible idea. The left sidebar is not what this site needs, it is a step back, we may as well just start making geocities websites and pretend like its the early 2000's again if this is the direction that design is going.
PLEASE do not use this approach. It is dangerous t...
Stack Exchange Inc. got into the phase when it's unable to do the side-step and look at their ideas "from outside". They started taking fragile parts of their products for granted and believing they won't break. The only possible outcome is that they will break.
@EmilioPisanty well, they take for instance the fact that sites have communities for granted, ignoring the needs of the communities. This will make the communities weaker, to the point they won't possibly feel as communities anymore.
The current unification effort is only one such step; important features considering the chat were never implemented, with the idea that the chat is a marginal product.
@EmilioPisanty I would say "less troublesome to maintain". Also, remember that the important steps were already implemented, e.g. unification of widths of the elements
@EmilioPisanty -- still thinking about this one. but the proposal to change to a single font, if implemented, would be disastrous, so i've added tex to the list of sites that need an extra font (monospace) and also added a comment.
@naphaneal On the features of gravitational waves (of course), essentially if there are some imprints from so-called naked singularities. For details please ask Kip.
This gets me thinking about when the great fluid dynamicist von Kármán died and went to heaven. There he met God, who promised he could answer any question. So von Kármán wanted to know how turbulence worked. God got out paper and pen, and scribbled a bunch of equations. After studying these for a while, von Kármán shook his head and said, “no, that's still wrong”.
So anyway, I happen to agree with Hawking about the afterlife, but it still is fun imagining him arguing with God about the big bang and insisting that God had it wrong. It would be just like him, from what I have heard.
@CarLaTeX Thanks. My name is contained in the package documentation and the short description on ctan you link to... But I'll the answer nonetheless :)
@yo' -- well, i'd believe that, except that in just a minute or two the score reverted, and there's no report of downvotes or loss of votes. a puzzlement. (but anyhow, it's a nice number to trap. maybe in another ten years i'll get to 131072. (or maybe just to 70k.)
@Skillmon When the British vote for Brexit, my uncle (84 years old) said: "It's since December 1943 that I didn't trust the English" (they bombed Milan at that time)
@Skillmon is it the same one? (I started to look at how hard it would be to implement the one in pdftex/luatex (from metafont) but have no time at present:-)
@CarLaTeX sadly the british press were saying the same about more or less every country in europe except britain, which is why we are where we are
@JosephWright there really isn't that much code in luatex's arithemetic.w it's probably reasonably feasable to do in expl3, but expandable would be a bit of a pain. perhaps we should ask again on xetex list
@JosephWright I have a working PRNG which is non-expandable and producing values in the range 1 to 256 (which is enough atm). So there is no need for an interim. No need to dick out the old code. I can wait till there is a stable version in l3. And if I somehow think there should be an range and/or speed enhancement I can still use random.tex as a last resort.
@JosephWright Yes I know that. But I guess there will eventually be a solution, whether in XeTeX or in l3 is currently not important to me. And it is possible in l3 if the XeTeX team is somehow reluctant :)
@Skillmon We did ask, but things got a bit tricky when people looked at the generator code itself. We really want the same code across engines, so the aim is to get the pdfTeX code into XeTeX ...
@Skillmon Not at present, largely because it's not a major priority. Bruno and I did discuss the (very slow) macro-based approach (we both had the same idea on how to do it): it will likely depend on the team having a need to do this in XeTeX.
As noted, this is a terrible idea. The left sidebar is not what this site needs, it is a step back, we may as well just start making geocities websites and pretend like its the early 2000's again if this is the direction that design is going.
PLEASE do not use this approach. It is dangerous t...
