7

Here is the equation written in mathjax

$$y=\frac{1 eV x^2}{2 md v^2}y$$

but it renders like this enter image description here

but i want to show like this

enter image description here

i know one idea like this

$$y=\frac{1}{2}\frac{ev}{2md}\frac{x^2}{v^2}$$

is there anyway i could write using only \frac one time? It would be better isn't it than writing \frac theree times and this may be just be example :)

thank you .

user80946
  • 197
  • Three fractions need three \frac commands. How could TeX or MathJax split the fraction line otherwise? – egreg Jul 14 '15 at 13:43
  • @egreg it means i need to use frac three times ... but is it possible to accomplish using other like \over bla bla bla ? – user80946 Jul 14 '15 at 13:48
  • Using \over is deprecated in LaTeX. You need three of them as well. – egreg Jul 14 '15 at 13:51

1 Answers1

6

TeX and MathJax are not clairvoyant. If you tell them to typeset one fraction, they happily comply. But one fraction will have just one fraction line.

Your formula should be typeset as three separated fractions:

\frac{1}{2} \frac{eV}{md} \frac{x^{2}}{v^{2}}

or, maybe better,

\frac{1}{2} \, \frac{eV}{md} \, \frac{x^{2}}{v^{2}}

(spaces are optional, but make for good reading).

enter image description here

This is a MathJax rendering of the same:

enter image description here

but remember this is browser and machine dependent.

Using {1\over 2} is deprecated in LaTeX, so, unless you use Plain TeX for your documents, it's better to use \frac also in MathJax. There would be no advantage with it, because \over makes just one fraction line, just like \frac.

egreg
  • 1,121,712
  • if over is depreciated then they should not have used it in no 8

    http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference

     – user80946 Jul 14 '15 at 14:07
  • @user80946 - As @egreg has noted, the use of \over is deprecated in LaTeX. How people do their coding in plain-TeX or MathJax is a separate matter. Keep in mind that LaTeX and MathJax are completely different "under the hood". – Mico Jul 14 '15 at 14:11