5

I have this equation:

g^{\mathsmaller{\left(1\right)}} \left( \tau \right) = \frac{\langle E_{\mathsmaller{s}}^{\mathsmaller{*}}\left( 0 \right) E_{\mathsmaller{s}} \left( \tau \right) \rangle}{\langle \lvert E_{\mathsmaller{s}} \rvert^{\mathsmaller{2}} \rangle}

which looks like this.

equation

Latex always brings out the OCD in me so I have some questions:

  • Why is the first subscript s lower down than the 2nd one? How can I (should I?) force them to be at the same level or does latex know what its doing?
  • Shouldn't the complex conjugate symbol * and the squared 2 be higher up?
egreg
  • 1,121,712
Steve Hatcher
  • 951
  • @cslstr I know what you're doing, but that last edit actually made this question a lot less readable – FionaSmith May 22 '14 at 15:49
  • 2
    For lowering the s, use E_s^{\vphantom{*}}. The lower placement of * and 2 is due to the fact that the superscript baseline still remains the same regardless of the use of \mathsmaller. What should also tickle your OCD is the excessive use of \left...\right, which causes wide (unnecessary) spaces around them. – Werner May 22 '14 at 16:08
  • @Werner -- that should be an answer. – barbara beeton May 22 '14 at 16:16

1 Answers1

6

This may not be fully in-line with what you're after, since the main suggestion is to drop a bunch of your manual formatting:

enter image description here

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{relsize,amsmath}
\begin{document}
\[
  g^{\mathsmaller{\left(1\right)}} \left( \tau \right) = 
    \frac{\langle E_{\mathsmaller{s}}^{\mathsmaller{*}}\left( 0 \right) 
       E_{\mathsmaller{s}} \left( \tau \right) \rangle}
      {\langle \lvert E_{\mathsmaller{s}} \rvert^{\mathsmaller{2}} \rangle}
\]

\[
  g^{(1)}(\tau) = 
    \frac{\langle E_s^*(0) E_s^{\vphantom{*}}(\tau)\rangle}
         {\langle \lvert E_s \rvert^2 \rangle}
\]
\end{document}

I've removed the \mathsmaller font adjustment, as well as the over-use of \left...\right constructions. Their use typically introduces additional/unwanted space.

Specific to your points:

  • To correct for the placement of the mis-aligned s, insert a non-existent * using E_s^{\vphantom{*}}

  • \mathsmaller only reduces the font size (from \scriptstyle to \scriptscriptstyle in your case), but doesn't change the baseline. As such, it seems like the superscripts can be a little higher. If you use the regular (\scriptstyle) superscripts, they are appropriately aligned with the top of the superscripted base.

Ps. Final OCD-ance: Perhaps you could add a small space \, between the operands in the fraction numerator to distinguish them properly, leaving to this output:

enter image description here

Community
  • 1
Werner
  • 603,163
  • 3
    E^{}_s is sufficient, since the asterisk is not unusually big. The \, is wrong. – egreg May 22 '14 at 16:41
  • @Werner thank you very much. I am trying to be consistent using \left( \right) or (). I see in this case it definitely is better without it so it seems to be a case by case scenario. The only thing for me is a superscript normal sized {2} always looks too big in my eyes but maybe I will need to learn to accept it. Either way your final equation looks much MUCH better than my first. – Steve Hatcher May 22 '14 at 17:00