user202729

@Ginger well at least hope first. But they do seem to want to get the situation resolved. (somewhat.)

@lyxal Ugh. Yes, some of the striking mods are worried about the "really abusive" things on the network as well. (this one isn't even that bad I think.)

While the change doesn't really affect our site (as explained before the volume of AI-generated answer is low here anyway) I signed the letter anyway. Hopefully it helps with increasing the number and the situation gets resolved soon(er).

@TeXnician Well the strike is caused not just by the ban of the automated detectors... (● several mods never use the detector at all ● they're "also not allowed to use their brain to detect ChatGPT posts", in my understanding)

Just checking how is the AI-generated content situation on our site? There's this thing on SE meta.stackexchange.com/questions/389617/…

Is LPPL 1.3d real or just something OpenAI randomly come up with?

@JosephWright As yet-another open-source developer I know that as well...

Was referring to the "2022 Update Notes" chapter in ucs package documentation.

@JosephWright ctan.org/pkg/ucs I assume that's what it says?

Does it support Unicode math letter in input now?

Quick check, I assume the LaTeX kernel is updated so that utf8x old version does not work anymore? Thus the update.

@samcarter Did anything interesting happen out of this?

Although I don't really use them myself.

There are such things as antiword (Python package to parse Microsoft Word file) and VBA, as well as Python HTML libraries.

@DialFrost If you care about typographical output, tex.stackexchange.com/a/110140/250119. Otherwise, probably not much benefit.

Although it's LuaTeX maybe there's some weird behavior. May worth a main question but that would be hard to search for anyway

@DavidCarlisle Doesn't look like that's the case, that prompt is a * instead of a ? right?

@UlrichDiez Is this answer yours? It's full of UD@ macros and (writing style) but... unregistered user?

@ibuprofen See also Defining environments based on other ones: What's the right way? - TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange

Probably can as well. Actually making them suffix might actually make hash lookup/resolve faster

by tradition. not a palindrome though

Which is... something some of my other unreleased package does, by the way

Sounds like you want to grab the argument verbatim then scantokens after do the necessary changes

???? what are you even trying to do?

You can't get one with cat 5 anyway

No it's 5

\the\catcode `\^^M

With my new unreleased package: \def \cA\^^M { \cO\^^M } (cA and cO are "active" and "other" respectively as in regex syntax)

Why is it you asking that question!?

@DavidCarlisle Wait what "calling time" mean? The only kind of action to possibly do would be something like ask moderator to purge comments? (will delete this one soon)

@AndréCaldas What's your point then? TeX is low level indeed, it just is. But LaTeX is (or at least attempts to be) not. Every LaTeX package is considered part of LaTeX too, and that includes the import package that you are using. Indeed if you mix \input with \import it does not work correctly, but the same happens if you mix absolute import and relative import in Python.

@AndréCaldas Avoid personal attacks. Besides, the current working directory is the same as what TeX is using, and is not the same as the directory that the "running executable" is in. (same for Python's open() by the way.)

@AndréCaldas Assembly/C open() system call does not allow opening a file by relative path too, yet Python allows importing a module by relative path. There should be no problem with using a package.

@AndréCaldas Sounds like what you actually want to have is include - How to make the main file recognize relative paths used in the imported files? - TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange. ("TeX does allow relative path, you just need to know how to use it")

it could write "it's undefined behavior to attempt to use unexpandable command inside expandable command definition or (some argument types)" and it will be roughly on the same level as C's "it's undefined behavior to access out of bound indices)

On the other hand I think there's also some "curse of knowledge" issue here, where interface3.pdf presupposes the reader is familiar with several TeX concepts (groups, expandability) so it does not really explain expandability...

You talk about "you can't debug LaTeX without learning low-level primitives", but look at the tracing mode of functional package for example. (I don't use it myself but the concept seems to work)

@wipet Fundamentally "segmentation fault in C++" and "weird low-level errors in LaTeX" are on the same "leaky abstraction" level.

If anything I'd guess it's some hidden "extra space" bug in one of the package which is only made visible by some mode-changing command caused by some other package because by default spaces after math mode are gobbled, something like that..

Wait where did Rmano's comment go? Probably "going to be converted to an answer" or is incorrect?

In any case, I mean, if you decide to use it in your personal documents I won't come delete the offending files on your computer, but when it's on this site it's worth pointing out also for any future readers that come across the question that the syntax is not officially supported.

David Carlisle is a LaTeX developer and says "LaTeX doesn't officially support $$" there, so by-definition LaTeX doesn't officially support $$. Of course it won't fail to work any time soon (something like redefining $ to be active would break a large number of documents).

Well $$ is not formally supported in LaTeX anyway, maybe \[... \] will help

Imaginary bounty for answers that takes time sublinear in the output (number of graphs) (might be useful: Burnside lemma). Real bounty for proof that it's not possible.

@LevelRiverSt It's not prohibited to make it so that answerers have to prove something to write an answer, is it? I could rewrite it in terms of planar graph isomorphism, but it may spoil half of the challenge.

@LevelRiverSt I think the definitions are clear enough (except that they have to go to the Wikipedia link to read the definition of homeomorphism -- is that a problem? Then, if it is, is it necessary to include definition for limit and continuous bijective functions too?)

@LevelRiverSt (although the question is reopened already) what explanation do you want? Prove that the 2 figures you mentioned are not homeomorphic?