Nested Enumerations overlap

Question

I am trying to make a “combined” nested enumeration as shown below in this code:

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{amssymb, graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{amsfonts,bm}
\usepackage{diagbox}
\usepackage[makeroom]{cancel}
\usepackage{pgfplots}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes,arrows}
\usepackage{verbatim}
\usepackage[american,siunitx]{circuitikz}
\usepackage[export]{adjustbox}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\DeclarePairedDelimiter\ceil{\lceil}{\rceil}
\DeclarePairedDelimiter\floor{\lfloor}{\rfloor}
\DeclarePairedDelimiter\norm{\lvert}{\rvert}
\usepackage{units}
\usepackage{relsize}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry} 
\let\DeclareUSUnit\DeclareSIUnit
\let\US\SI
\DeclareUSUnit\mile{mi}
\usepackage{optidef}

\setlength{\labelsep}{1em}

\begin{document}
    \title{\vspace{-2cm} HW}
    \author{John Doe}
    \date{\today}
    \maketitle
    \begin{enumerate}[leftmargin =*]
        \item
        \begin{enumerate}
            \item[(a)-(b)] See MATLAB
            \item[(c)] For this problem, increasing $R$ seems to scale the control effort down at the cost of slowing down the states' response (the system is less oscillatory compared to the original), while increasing the elements of $Q$ seems to increase the control effort, which increases the states' response at the cost of making $\theta\left(t\right)$ more oscillatory than the original combination. In fact, one can verify that the poles of each system are 
            \begin{align*}
                s_1 &= \left\{-0.8098\pm 0.4951j,-2.8409,-3.8327\right\}\\
                s_2 &= \left\{-0.4057\pm 0.3501j,-3.1385,-3.4421\right\}\\
                s_3 &= \left\{-1.0795,-2.1289\pm0.7193j,-5.691\right\}
            \end{align*}
        \end{enumerate}
    \end{enumerate}
\end{document}

However, I am getting this:

Is there a way to move the inner enumeration such it doesn’t overlap with the outer one?

Your code is far from minimal, this is also mentioned by others in your previous questions. — Dr. Manuel Kuehner, Mar 08 '20 at 08:35
Maybe you are not aware of the fact, that a so-called MWE helps to get help, please have a look at http://meta.tex.stackexchange.com/q/228 — Dr. Manuel Kuehner, Mar 08 '20 at 08:36

AndréC · Answer 1 · 2020-03-08T07:06:29.060

New answer

Like this ?

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{enumitem}


\setlength{\labelsep}{1em}

\begin{document}
    \title{\vspace{-2cm} HW}
    \author{John Doe}
    \date{\today}
    \maketitle
    \begin{enumerate}[align=left]
        \item
        \begin{enumerate}[align=right]
            \item[(a)-(b)] See MATLAB
            \item[(c)] For this problem, increasing $R$ seems to scale the control effort down at the cost of slowing down the states' response (the system is less oscillatory compared to the original), while increasing the elements of $Q$ seems to increase the control effort, which increases the states' response at the cost of making $\theta\left(t\right)$ more oscillatory than the original combination. In fact, one can verify that the poles of each system are 
            \begin{align*}
                s_1 &= \left\{-0.8098\pm 0.4951j,-2.8409,-3.8327\right\}\\
                s_2 &= \left\{-0.4057\pm 0.3501j,-3.1385,-3.4421\right\}\\
                s_3 &= \left\{-1.0795,-2.1289\pm0.7193j,-5.691\right\}
            \end{align*}
        \end{enumerate}
    \end{enumerate}
\end{document}

Old answer

I have removed unnecessary packages in this question.

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{enumitem}


\setlength{\labelsep}{1em}

\begin{document}
    \title{\vspace{-2cm} HW}
    \author{John Doe}
    \date{\today}
    \maketitle
    \begin{enumerate}[align=left,leftmargin =*]
        \item
        \begin{enumerate}[align=left]
            \item[(a)-(b)] See MATLAB
            \item[(c)] For this problem, increasing $R$ seems to scale the control effort down at the cost of slowing down the states' response (the system is less oscillatory compared to the original), while increasing the elements of $Q$ seems to increase the control effort, which increases the states' response at the cost of making $\theta\left(t\right)$ more oscillatory than the original combination. In fact, one can verify that the poles of each system are 
            \begin{align*}
                s_1 &= \left\{-0.8098\pm 0.4951j,-2.8409,-3.8327\right\}\\
                s_2 &= \left\{-0.4057\pm 0.3501j,-3.1385,-3.4421\right\}\\
                s_3 &= \left\{-1.0795,-2.1289\pm0.7193j,-5.691\right\}
            \end{align*}
        \end{enumerate}
    \end{enumerate}
\end{document}

While this does the job of getting rid of the overlap, is there a way to vertically align (c) with (b)? — Superman, Mar 08 '20 at 06:29
@Superman I would at least upvote a answer if it provides a valid solution for my question. — Dr. Manuel Kuehner, Mar 08 '20 at 08:33

Zarko · Answer 2 · 2020-03-08T07:11:03.443

2

A small variation of the AndréC's answer:

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{enumitem}

\begin{document}
\begin{enumerate}
    \item
    \begin{enumerate}[align=right,leftmargin=4.4em]
        \item[(a) -- (b)] See MATLAB
        \item[(c)] For this problem, increasing $R$ seems to scale the control effort down at the cost of slowing down the states' response (the system is less oscillatory compared to the original), while increasing the elements of $Q$ seems to increase the control effort, which increases the states' response at the cost of making $\theta\left(t\right)$ more oscillatory than the original combination. In fact, one can verify that the poles of each system are
        \begin{align*}
            s_1 & = \{-0.8098\pm 0.4951j,-2.8409,-3.8327\}\\
            s_2 & = \{-0.4057\pm 0.3501j,-3.1385,-3.4421\}\\
            s_3 & = \{-1.0795,-2.1289\pm 0.7193j,-5.691\}
        \end{align*}
    \end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{document}

edited Mar 08 '20 at 07:11

answered Mar 08 '20 at 06:52

Zarko

296,517

Actually, that’s for the hyphen between (a) and (b). What if I put and en dash or em dash in between? – Superman Mar 08 '20 at 07:06
@Superman, now answer consider en dash between (a) and (b). As you can see, the leftmargin is slightly increased (to 4.4em). – Zarko Mar 08 '20 at 07:12
got it. How does one determine the lengths of the characters like the em dash in order to properly space things like what you did? – Superman Mar 08 '20 at 07:50
@Superman, with magic power of Superman :-). Seriously, 1em is the width of character M. Width of en dash with space around it is about half of em, all parenthesis in labels together are approximately 1em lenght, both character in label 1em, and both label sep together has 2em, so their sum is approximately 4.4em /well, 4.4 is easier type as 4.5 ;-)/. – Zarko Mar 08 '20 at 09:43

Nested Enumerations overlap

2 Answers2

New answer

Old answer

Linked