[comp.sys.mac.apps] WYSIWYG equations.

egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) (06/12/91)

Is there a package that makes WYSIWYG equations to the same quality
as LaTex??

PS The answer is not Expressionist!!- or WORD's built-in thing!

-- 
 --Jeremy                                          
 --<egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk>   
...........I don't love you since you ate my dog..........

edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) (06/13/91)

In article <10983@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>Is there a package that makes WYSIWYG equations to the same quality
>as LaTex??
>
>PS The answer is not Expressionist!!- or WORD's built-in thing!

Expressionist can produce TeX output, which can then be processed
by TeX...  
--
  Gerald A. Edgar                Internet:  edgar@mps.ohio-state.edu
  Department of Mathematics      Bitnet:    EDGAR@OHSTPY
  The Ohio State University      telephone: 614-292-0395 (Office)
  Columbus, OH 43210              -292-4975 (Math. Dept.) -292-1479 (Dept. Fax)

barry@reed.UUCP (Barry Smith) (06/13/91)

In article <10983@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>Is there a package that makes WYSIWYG equations to the same quality
>as LaTex??

Well, there's LaTeX... and Textures, for the Macintosh.  If by "WYSIWYG",
you mean the screen display accurately reflects the printed result, I don't
think you'll find any better.  (And you can copy from the screen display
and paste into other applications, given the proper fonts, etc.)

If, on the other hand, you mean "interactive manipulation" or "direct
interaction", i.e., reach out and touch something, then the simple answer
is "no, not to the same quality as LaTeX".  (Unless, of course, you use
one of the equation editors that produces TeX code!)

So---what do YOU mean when you say WYSIWYG?

Barry Smith, Blue Sky Research
barry@reed.{bitnet, edu, uucp}

weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka) (06/13/91)

In article <10983@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>Is there a package that makes WYSIWYG equations to the same quality
>as LaTex??
>
>PS The answer is not Expressionist!!- or WORD's built-in thing!
>

The application is called MathType.  WYSIWYG equations, pull down menus
and output as good as TeX.  Does not run with system 7.
I bought mine from MacZone, It is not available from all the big mail
order houses.  They do have a demo version.  Expected system 7 compatibility
in a few months.  They have a TeX generator which I use only to send
documents to my advisor, who uses LaTeX.  They expect to have a Mathematica
translation soon.

For Everything else I use I have system 7 compatible versions, I ran system
7 for 2 weeks (enjoyed it) but with the incompatibility problem I had
to choose between Mathtype and system 7.   I chose Mathtype.

Not affiliated with either Design Science or MacZone.  One happy user.

-Ted Weverka.

lauriekl@microsoft.UUCP (Laurie KLEINER) (06/21/91)

In article <16498@reed.UUCP> barry@reed.edu (Barry Smith) writes:
>In article <10983@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>>Is there a package that makes WYSIWYG equations to the same quality
>>as LaTex??
>
>Well, there's LaTeX... and Textures, for the Macintosh.  If by "WYSIWYG",
>you mean the screen display accurately reflects the printed result, I don't
>think you'll find any better.  (And you can copy from the screen display
>and paste into other applications, given the proper fonts, etc.)

A little known fact:  Microsoft Word 4.0 has formulas - a feature that
allows you to build complex mathmatical formulas.  You build the formula
in 'show paragraph marks' mode, and view what will actually print in 
'hide paragraph marks' mode (toggle from one mode to another with 
command-Y).  

For example, 1/square root(x^2 + 5) (pretend that this looks pretty, on
the right levels, etc) would be \f(1,\r(x\s(2) + 5))   
(side note, "\" stands for the key combination (command-option-\)). 

Really, it's easy.  Page 98 in the reference manual.

_________
Laurie Kleiner
"Hey, I just work here."
lauriekl@microsoft.com

garrett@chopin.udel.edu (Joel Garrett) (06/21/91)

In article <73043@microsoft.UUCP> lauriekl@microsoft.UUCP (Fuzzball) writes:
>In article <16498@reed.UUCP> barry@reed.edu (Barry Smith) writes:
>>In article <10983@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>
[all kinds of stuff about TeX, TEXTURES, etc. deleted, then something about
MS Word Formulas... ]

>
>Really, it's easy.  Page 98 in the reference manual.
>

It is even easier if you make use of the "Formula Glossary" stuff in the
folder with the same name on one of the distribution disks.  This folder 
holds a glossary that has all the equations and symbols and such in it, and
a settings file that adds the ability to paste these things into your document
via an added "Work" menu on the menu bar.  Even comes with documentation...
nice stuff...

scavo@cie.uoregon.edu (Tom Scavo) (06/26/91)

In article <73043@microsoft.UUCP> lauriekl@microsoft.UUCP (Fuzzball) writes:

>A little known fact:  Microsoft Word 4.0 has formulas - a feature that
>allows you to build complex mathmatical formulas.  You build the formula
>in 'show paragraph marks' mode, and view what will actually print in 
>'hide paragraph marks' mode (toggle from one mode to another with 
>command-Y).  
>
>For example, 1/square root(x^2 + 5) (pretend that this looks pretty, on
>the right levels, etc) would be \f(1,\r(x\s(2) + 5))   
>(side note, "\" stands for the key combination (command-option-\)). 
>
>Really, it's easy.  Page 98 in the reference manual.

But, as regular readers of this newsgroup already know, Word's formula 
processor is far from perfect.  One major shortcoming is that subscripts 
and superscripts require manual positioning.  Another is the flawed 
display of integrals.  And why can't the columns of arrays be aligned on 
a decimal point, or tabs/linefeeds be imbedded in argument lists (for 
readability and debugging)?

And then there are bugs.  I just posted an article the other day that 
pointed out how the \Array command chokes on more than 39 arguments.  The 
\Bracket command also has some serious problems (which I won't go into 
here), as does the glossary.

Be that as it may, Word formula commands are very handy and even quite 
easy when used in conjuction with the glossary (see below).

In article <17298@chopin.udel.edu> garrett@chopin.udel.edu (Joel Garrett) 
writes:

>It is even easier if you make use of the "Formula Glossary" stuff in the
>folder with the same name on one of the distribution disks.  This folder 
>holds a glossary that has all the equations and symbols and such in it, and
>a settings file that adds the ability to paste these things into your document
>via an added "Work" menu on the menu bar.  Even comes with documentation...
>nice stuff...

Yup, that's how I got started, too.  But all of the formulas in the 
glossary included on the Word 4.0 distribution disks required tweaking, 
while some needed a major overhaul.  Important Symbol font characters 
were also missing (the subset operator, for instance).

About a year ago, I e-mailed an enhanced Mathematics Glossary to about 
100 readers of this group.  Since that time I've added a bunch of new 
things like in-line mathematical expressions, a LaTeX-like "eqnarray" 
environment, and commutative diagrams.  The original package (which 
includes a Mathematics Glossary, a README file, a Quick Reference Guide, 
*and* a corresponding Settings file) is now available by anonymous ftp 
from cie.uoregon.edu <128.223.24.36> in pub/glossary1.hqx.   The latest 
and greatest version (minus the Settings file) will also be found there:  
it's located in pub/glossary2.hqx.

Feel free to send comments about either of the glossaries to me at 
scavo@cie.uoregon.edu.

-- 
Tom Scavo
scavo@cie.uoregon.edu