TopAnswers
TeX
Niranjan; NI - RAN (as in _/run/_) - JAN (the same vowel as in _/run/_, but with a _/j/_).
and the spotlight has highlighted something exactly when it was needed for a super secret project.. :)
Package in the spotlight: [anima](https://ctan.org/pkg/anima)
@Jack I forgot to mention it: Of course you can count on my help as well :P
Markdown supports nesting of arbitrary stuff by indenting with four spaces in the sources. That includes nesting of enumeration lists (as shown by @samcarter with a suitable `pandoc` configuration).
oh wow that is lovely, thanks!
(disclaimer: I have no idea if the html export can do this)
For the pdf:
```
---
output: pdf_document
header-includes:
- \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\arabic{enumi}.}
- \renewcommand{\labelenumii}{\arabic{enumi}.\arabic{enumii}}
- \renewcommand{\labelenumiii}{\arabic{enumi}.\arabic{enumii}.\arabic{enumiii}}
---
#. test
#. test
#. test
#. test
#. test
#. test
#. test
```
markdown can't do the numbering (1, 1.1, 1.1.1) for the multi-level lists unfortunately
Thanks all!
Oh and how can I forget pointing you to this beauty! :heart: learnlatex.org
@Jack `make4ht` did a good job for me. The layout which you want can be designed in the standard LaTeX class `book` or maybe with a little more enhanced `memoir`. Markdown is okay too, but using TeX will give you highly extensible and customisable results. I have tried `make4ht` with simple as well as complicated TeX files and it yielded very good results. Just a personal opinion, if TeX is involved in a multi-flavored project and it is to be version controlled, it is always better to _write_ in TeX and then convert it to any format required. Some people I know have tried the XML-first approach as XML is even more marked up; but I don't think it yielded satisfactory results. Getting used to TeX is not trivial, but it is not as scary as it is perceived to be is what I feel. You may of course ask questions on TopTeX for help, I think most of us would love to help you out. :)
There are several packages/classes for legal texts, e.g. https://ctan.org/pkg/contract If you'd like to have both html and pdf, I'd second @Skillmon's idea about using markdown. Once you have the text in markdown, something like pandoc could be used to convert it to html and (via latex) to pdf (and can be automated via github actions or similar). If you face any specific problems, e.g, how to set up the page headers etc., I'd be more than happy to help!
Looks certainly doable, but I doubt there is a class or template that yields your results without some manual work on getting the formatting right. I'd use LuaLaTeX (because there are underlined things, and underlining text is a hard problem in TeX without LuaTeX, for which there is the fabulous `lua-ul` package). There are different projects to generate HTML from TeX, some of which look quite promising, but I have no experience with any of those. But I have to say, that PDF has a very non-uniform look to it :) Nothing I'd personally want to create. Also for someone not that experienced with TeX it might be a good idea to use a different method to generate something like that (for instance, with a quick glance I spotted nothing that couldn't be done in Markdown).
I looking for a text-based fomat that can be version-controlled and used to generate a PDF (and preferably also HTML)
Hi, quick question if I may, would something in the TeX world be useful for a document like this: https://rbwm.moderngov.co.uk/documents/g9871/Public%20reports%20pack%20Wednesday%2001-May-2024%20The%20Councils%20Constitution.pdf?T=10&Info=1
Okay, including separate PDFs was much easier than this. I will go with that.
well, you could patch the responsible code to revert that to the LaTeX standard. But, without looking into the documentation, I don't think there is a user-facing option for that, no.
Thanks! Is there any way to locally turn this off? I would like to make the ugly uglier :P (Edit: I created and added standalone PDFs, urgh, really hurtful to eyes :cry:).
For anyone interested in unusual musical instruments, here's something you might like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN1OAXyjf9c
with `array.sty` loaded the vertical rules take up width making the table a tad wider (it's easy to spot in your GIF).
Wow! I tried unloading and loading again just to spot the difference, but sob, my eyes are not yet ready. Can you explain how you inferred that?
_removed_
Package in the spotlight: [inlinegraphicx](https://www.ctan.org/pkg/inlinegraphicx)
I have books but they are in german. Start with Peano Axioms, e.g. https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~wright/1001/appendix-b---peanos-axioms.html. And read Gödel, Escher, Bach from Douglas R. Hofstadter, not directly about numbers but good for the logic background of axiomatic systems.
@Skillmon @Ulrike Thanks for the explanations. It's really engaging to think on these lines. @Ulrike, can you suggest some references for understanding the axiomatic background of numbers? I am curious to read about it.
well if you imagine a number system where -infinity and +infinity are merged then you (perhaps) solve the problem with the division but destroy transitivity of ordering, so a<b and b<c no longer implies a <c. Also such an infinity merge would not solve the problem that you can't reverse the n/0 operation, for this you then need many "infinity" numbers so n/0= infinity_n, m/0=infinity_m etc, and you would have to declare (consistent) rules how this numbers add and multiply and relate to the "normal" numbers (I do not want to think what 0/0 will do here ...). You can try to develop something but be aware that there is a whole branch of mathematic dedicated to the axiomatic background of the numbers.
There is no wrapping around. If you let the number *x* grow larger the difference between *x* and *-x* grows larger (it's 2*x*). When *x* reaches infinity the difference between *x* and *-x* will be infinitely large. If two numbers differ they aren't the same number. Now if you pick 1/*x* and *x* is positive and the absolute value is smaller than 1 the result will be bigger than 1. If you use 1/(*-x*) the result will be smaller than -1. If you let *x* shrink towards zero the absolute value of the quotients will grow larger, but with opposing signs, so the difference between 1/*x* and 1/(*-x*) will grow larger, but at the same time the difference between *x* and *-x* grows smaller until it reaches 0 (so they are the same number). So you get the problem that 1/0 could be both +∞ and -∞.
Yes, I am aware of this reasoning. But, this also raises the same question. It is a theoretical explanation, but underlying the theory, there should be a semantic core to the elements of the theory, e.g., how can 0 be actualised, how can infinity be so, etc. Also, this proof runs on an assumption that 0 is at the center and the two infinities run from the center in the exact opposite directions. That's why it becomes so difficult to comprehend that the same operation can be at the two extremes of the number line. I don't have a fully constructed theory for this, but my question was what if the two infinities are at the same imaginary point? What if they are not separate at all. I had given an alternative "just works" kinda model just to change this perspective, but not sure, if it is sustainable or not..
think about the sequence 1/1, 1/0.1, 1/0.01, and get slowly nearer to the zero. The results gets larger and larger and so one answer is +infinity. Then do the same from the other side: 1/-1, 1/-0.1, 1/-0.01 etc. Now the answer is -infinity.
> In each case, the equation qb = a (where the unknown is q and b is 0) does not meet the criterion of having **one unique solution**. Thanks for the proof. I had read this explanation in a slightly different way, but yes, I still think the answer (for me) is unsatisfactory. but I think first we need to set some background for this exchange. The primary question I think should be DO mathematical numbers correlate with real world understanding of one, two, three at all? If yes, then does number zero correlate with the concept of nothingness? If the answer to any/both of these is "no", then I think we can throw away the cake. I feel most of the times mathematical numbers can be mapped to the real world understanding of numbers, but specially with zero it looks _slippery_ as you say. Mathematicians tend to explain how x/0 could destroy their existing established theory which I very well appreciate. The theoretical clarity mathematicians have is commendable, but then is the established theory buggy? Can it be bettered in order to capture some more intricate nuances?
In order to do any kind of maths, you need definitions and axioms. So, what is your definition of division? The usual definition in number contexts is: assuming a and b are “numbers” (which is already too vague for maths) a/b is “the” number such that (a/b)×b = a I put “the” in quotes because, for this to make sense, you need to ensure (by axiom or theorem) that such a “number” exists and is unique, for every “valid” (a,b) combination. How to do so depends on the particular kind of ”numbers” you are considering (integers, rationals, reals, etc.). *In other words, a/b is defined as the unique solution of equation qb = a (of unknown q), when this equation has a unique solution.* Now, with usual ”numbers”, including real and complex numbers, you can easily see why dividing by 0 (i.e., applying the definition to (a,b) pairs such that b = 0) is invalid with this definition: * if a ≠ 0, then there is no number q such that q×0 = a; * if a = 0, every number q verifies q×0 = a. In each case, the equation qb = a (where the unknown is q and b is 0) does not meet the criterion of having **one unique solution**. P.S.: sorry, no cake. :) (Or, beware that this is not maths and is slippery: you pretend that you're going to cut the cake into parts and that, after giving me zero of these parts, I'll have the full cake. No way!)
One mathematician managed to tell me why it is unacceptable in math. The reason, according to him, was the two orthogonal infinities (positive and negative). I was convinced that the problem is valid, but just because of that making 1/0 "unacceptable" or "invalid" was an inelegant solution according to me.
A non mathematician here, but I have asked this question to so many math-people and always have got unsatisfactory answers. I am really interested in knowing how one should interpret n/0. When one says 1/2, it can be semantically understood as cutting one entity in two parts of equal size/measurement. What does it mean to say 1/0? Suppose I have one cake and I "divide it by two", I get two equal pieces of cake. After "dividing by zero" what will I get? What does it even mean??? I am enraging math, probably. :P
Just heard a nice description of dividing by zero: "It makes the math be mad at you" :)