0

This is more of a question about convention rather than a specific question about coding in LaTeX. When referencing multiple equations in quick succession, what is the correct convention?

  • We can see from Eq. \ref{EQ:1} and Eq. \ref{EQ:2} that...
  • We can see from Eq. \ref{EQ:1} and \ref{EQ:2} that...
  • We can see from Eqs. \ref{EQ:1} and \ref{EQ:2} that...
  • We can see from Eqs. \ref{EQ:1,EQ:2} that...

Is there any specific or best practice convention?

user27119
  • 389
  • 3
    Many people have many different conventions. However, once you have found yours, I recommend using cleveref, in particular section 8.2.2 Reference Ranges of its manual. Please note also that subequations can be used to collectively refer to some set of equations. –  Jun 13 '20 at 18:24
  • 1
    (1) and (3) can both be correct, i.e., idiomatic. What's appropriate in a given sentence really depends on what information you're aiming to convey. (2) isn't idiomatic -- at least, not idiomatic English. (4) results in a LateX syntax error. – Mico Jun 13 '20 at 18:31
  • @Schrödinger'scat Thanks for the suggestion of cleverref. Despite using LaTeX for quite a while I had never come across that! – user27119 Jun 13 '20 at 18:40
  • 1
    @Q.P. - See the posting 'Cross-reference packages: which to use, which conflict?](https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/36295/5001) and the associated answers for information on packages, including cleveref, that simplify the task of creating cross-references. – Mico Jun 13 '20 at 19:04
  • @Mico thanks for this! Your point about idiomatic English was a concern of mine as repetitive use of "equation" seems clunky to my ear. – user27119 Jun 13 '20 at 19:31
  • 1
    If you are using amsmath, I'd be inclined to recommend "Eqs.~\eqref{EQ:1} and~\eqref{EQ:2}`, or even without the "Eqs.", since the parenthesized references clearly identify these as equations. (That would be the recommended AMS style, with which I've worked for many years.) – barbara beeton Jun 14 '20 at 00:36
  • @barbarabeeton Thanks for the input! Eqs seems idiomatic, as obviously the plural is correct. – user27119 Jun 14 '20 at 11:04

0 Answers0