When I write
\[
\left \lVert \overrightarrow{\nabla} \right \rVert
\]
I get way too much extra space under the baseline:
Why is this happening, and how can I fix it?
When I write
\[
\left \lVert \overrightarrow{\nabla} \right \rVert
\]
I get way too much extra space under the baseline:
Why is this happening, and how can I fix it?
The fences are symmetric with respect to the formula axis (the imaginary line where fraction lines sit). In the case of \overrightarrow{\nabla}, the size chosen is the same as for \Bigg, which extends way down the formula axis.
There's no need that the fences cover the whole construction, in particular the arrow.
Here's a visual sample, where I use the handy \DeclarePairedDelimiter function provided by mathtools (that loads amsmath). I also use smaller arrows as defined in https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/248297/4427
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\DeclarePairedDelimiter{\norm}{\lVert}{\rVert}
\makeatletter
\newcommand{\overrightsmallarrow}{\mathpalette{\overarrowsmall@\rightarrowfill@}}
\newcommand{\overarrowsmall@}[3]{%
\vbox{%
\ialign{%
##\crcr
#1{\smaller@style{#2}}\crcr
\noalign{\nointerlineskip\vskip1pt}%
$\m@th\hfil#2#3\hfil$\crcr
}%
}%
}
\def\smaller@style#1{%
\ifx#1\displaystyle\scriptstyle\else
\ifx#1\textstyle\scriptstyle\else
\scriptscriptstyle
\fi
\fi
}
\makeatother
\begin{document}
\begin{gather*}
\norm{\overrightsmallarrow{\nabla}}\quad
\norm[\big]{\overrightsmallarrow{\nabla}}\quad
\norm[\Big]{\overrightsmallarrow{\nabla}}\quad
\norm*{\overrightsmallarrow{\nabla}}
\\
\norm{\overrightsmallarrow{x}}\quad
\norm[\big]{\overrightsmallarrow{x}}\quad
\norm[\Big]{\overrightsmallarrow{x}}\quad
\norm*{\overrightsmallarrow{x}}
\\
\norm{\overrightsmallarrow{X}}\quad
\norm[\big]{\overrightsmallarrow{X}}\quad
\norm[\Big]{\overrightsmallarrow{X}}\quad
\norm*{\overrightsmallarrow{X}}
\end{gather*}
\end{document}
I have no doubt that the normal version is the right one.
\ialign is just \halign with an initialization of \everycr to empty and \tabskip to zero.
– egreg
Aug 26 '15 at 08:19
\leftand\rightdoes) are vertically symmetrical around the math axis (at the height of a minus sign). this expression, whose height is increased by the overarrow, will gain an equivalent depth using this coding. – barbara beeton Aug 25 '15 at 20:53\leftand\rightand instead use\bigl,\Bigl,...and\bigr,\Bigr,...from amsmath. – Aug 25 '15 at 21:00\Bigland\Bigr, which make the\lVertand\rVertjust reach the top of the\overrightarrow, similarly add a huge amount of space underneath the baseline in this example.\bigland\bigrdon't allow the\lVertand\rVertto reach the top of the\overrightarrow. – justin Aug 25 '15 at 21:06\bigones are sufficient. – egreg Aug 25 '15 at 21:15