A problem with `amsthm` and positive `\parskip`

Question

I want my paragraphs to be separated by some whitespace and not indented. However, there is way too big a space between end of a theorem and begin of a proof (an MWE follows). What are my options to fix it?

enter image description here

\documentclass{article}

\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{\baselineskip}

\usepackage{amsthm}

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}

\begin{document}

\begin{definition}
  As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Ideal of practical
  reason is a representation of, as far as I know, the things in
  themselves; as I have shown elsewhere, the phenomena should only be
  used as a canon for our understanding.
\end{definition}

\begin{theorem}
  Let us suppose that the noumena have nothing to do with necessity,
  since knowledge of the Categories is a posteriori.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
  As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the things in themselves
  (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) are a representation
  of time. Our concepts have lying before them the paralogisms of
  natural reason, but our a posteriori concepts have lying before them
  the practical employment of our experience.
\end{proof}

\end{document}

Przemysław Scherwentke · Accepted Answer · 2014-07-22T19:35:09.437

3

A new version, with redefinition moved to preamble.

\documentclass{article}

\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{\baselineskip}

\usepackage{amsthm}

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}


\let\oldproof\proof
\def\proof{\oldproof\unskip}

\begin{document}


\begin{definition}
  As any dedicated reader can clearly see, the Ideal of practical
  reason is a representation of, as far as I know, the things in
  themselves; as I have shown elsewhere, the phenomena should only be
  used as a canon for our understanding.
\end{definition}

\begin{theorem}
  Let us suppose that the noumena have nothing to do with necessity,
  since knowledge of the Categories is a posteriori.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
  As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the things in themselves
  (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) are a representation
  of time. Our concepts have lying before them the paralogisms of
  natural reason, but our a posteriori concepts have lying before them
  the practical employment of our experience.
\end{proof}

\end{document}

enter image description here

edited Jul 22 '14 at 19:35

answered Jul 22 '14 at 19:09

Przemysław Scherwentke

37,268

Not at all, unfortunately. This is supposed to be coded in a class released in the wild, for people to use. No manual hacks like this allowed... – mbork Jul 22 '14 at 19:11
@mbork OK, hence \unskip to definition of proof. I will change the answer. – Przemysław Scherwentke Jul 22 '14 at 19:17
BTW, I'm looking now at the definition of the proof environment, and I'm wondering why that skip appears... If I had more time (and my TeXbook copy at home;)), I could investigate this. Maybe tomorrow... – mbork Jul 22 '14 at 19:20
@mbork I can see, that it is solved, hence I am removing my answer. – Przemysław Scherwentke Jul 22 '14 at 19:24
No, better change it as you've written! – mbork Jul 22 '14 at 19:24
1

Better yet: \usepackage{etoolbox}\appto{\proof}{\unskip} – mbork Jul 22 '14 at 19:46
2

@mbork Yes, but etoolbox for such a small change? Like using a tank against a moskito. ;-) – Przemysław Scherwentke Jul 22 '14 at 20:06

score 1 · Answer 2 · answered Jul 22 '14 at 19:13

1

Try to add this in the preamble

\usepackage{etoolbox}
\AtBeginEnvironment{proof}{\vspace{-1.5\baselineskip}}

answered Jul 22 '14 at 19:13

Great, thanks! So it was proof which introduced the unnecessary skip. Stupid me, I should have tried something like this... – mbork Jul 22 '14 at 19:17

A problem with `amsthm` and positive `\parskip`

2 Answers2

Linked