\underbrace vs. \undercbrace with mtpro2 package

Asked Mar 17 '20 at 19:52

Active Mar 17 '20 at 21:30

Viewed 186 times

Please consider the following two-row expression, which uses two instances of \underbrace in the first row and two instances of \undercbrace (provided by the mtpro2 package) in the second:

\documentclass[a4paper,12pt,lite]{article}
\usepackage[margin=2.5cm]{geometry}
\usepackage{amsmath,newtxtext,mtpro2}
\begin{document}
\[ \begin{split}
\psi(t) &= \underbrace{a+b+c+d+e}_{f}  + \underbrace{h}_{g} \\
        &= \undercbrace{a+b+c+d+e}_{f} + \undercbrace{h}_{g}
\end{split} \]
\end{document}

Observe that the minimum width of \underbrace can easily exceed the actual width of its first argument. In contrast, the minimum width of the underbraces produced by \undercbrace is not all that large. (I believe the c in \undercbrace stands for either "curly" or "curvy".)

Question: Is it possible to obtain a narrow-width underbrace without using mtpro2's \undercbrace macro?

edited Mar 17 '20 at 21:30

Mico

506,678

asked Mar 17 '20 at 19:52

Sebastiano

54,118

2

Please check if my edit is satisfactory to you -- or if I completely missed the issue you're looking to fix. – Mico Mar 17 '20 at 21:25
2

@Mico Perfect!!!!!!!!!! – Sebastiano Mar 17 '20 at 21:45
Does this answer your question? I want a really small underbrace – campa Mar 18 '20 at 09:37
@campa Kind campa no :-( I wanted that when I have a few letters the bracket is not curved but horizontal as in the image. In the link you sent me, the curly brackets are too curved. Thank you for your advice. – Sebastiano Mar 18 '20 at 09:42
1

OK, sorry, vote retracted. You might want to update the question. – campa Mar 18 '20 at 09:45

\underbrace vs. \undercbrace with mtpro2 package

0 Answers0