Inconsistency between equation and \[ \]

Asked Apr 08 '21 at 17:16

Active Apr 08 '21 at 17:16

Viewed 72 times

While answering another question, I noticed that the definition for \begin{equation} is:

\def\equation{$$\refstepcounter{equation}}

Shouldn't \begin{equation} include the following like unnumbered display math does?

\ifvmode
    \nointerlineskip
    \makebox[.6\linewidth]{}%
\fi

asked Apr 08 '21 at 17:16

Don Hosek

3

possibly but can't really change the spacing after all this time. any document with mathematics ought be using amsmath, which redefines \[ to be \begin{equation*} closer to equation – David Carlisle Apr 08 '21 at 17:58
The whole \ifvmode etc. incantation is absent from amsmath. Kind of makes the argument against $$...$$ lose some of its punch. – Don Hosek Apr 08 '21 at 18:38
4

the main argument against $$ is non-support of fleqn, – David Carlisle Apr 08 '21 at 19:24
Ah, good point, I always forget about that. Taking a glance over the results on searching for fleqn here, it looks like a lot of package/class writers forget about it as well. – Don Hosek Apr 08 '21 at 19:51
The points you raise are also examined in this answer (shameless self-citation alert!) to the query What are the differences between $$, [, align, equation and displaymath? – Mico Apr 08 '21 at 20:03
4

I’m voting to close this question because it seems to be answered in the comments. – Willie Wong Jun 19 '23 at 15:08

0 Answers0