Why does the exp(x) not work in Latex?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I am currently working on a paper and require an equation with e^x. I tried using the suggested layout of $exp(x)$ but my output only shows an equation with exp(x) in the PDF output. Is there something that I am doing wrong is is there a specific package I need to use?
Any help would be appreciated.
math-mode formatting pdftex
asked Sep 5 at 10:45
Timothy Susanto
383
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I am currently working on a paper and require an equation with e^x. I tried using the suggested layout of $exp(x)$ but my output only shows an equation with exp(x) in the PDF output. Is there something that I am doing wrong is is there a specific package I need to use?
Any help would be appreciated.
math-mode formatting pdftex
asked Sep 5 at 10:45
Timothy Susanto
383
3
Welcome to TeX.SX! Your question is not very clear: does by any chance$e^x$do what you want?
– GuM
Sep 5 at 10:48
Yes it does but I am confused why the alternative notation would not work since I have ensured that I did not make any mistakes in writing the $exp(x)$
– Timothy Susanto
Sep 5 at 10:54
1
The alternative notation is just that: there is no “translation†ofexp(x)intoe^x. There are cases where the former notation is preferable to the latter.
– egreg
Sep 5 at 10:57
7
The inputexp(x)is specifically meant to generate the word “exp†(in upright font), a left parenthesis, an “x†in math italic font, and a closing parenthesis. In LaTeX, to add a superscript to something you must use the^notation. I advise you not to try to write anything in LaTeX without having previously read an introductory guide (at least).
– GuM
Sep 5 at 10:58
4
As already mentioned,expis an alternative notation toe^...that users should know. Sadly not everyone does. Consider[expbiggl(int_0^1 fdxbiggr) qquad e^int_0^1 fdx ]which of these are more redable? There are many examples of this where there are a short notation for simple input, and a companion notation for complicated input.
– daleif
Sep 5 at 11:05
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I am currently working on a paper and require an equation with e^x. I tried using the suggested layout of $exp(x)$ but my output only shows an equation with exp(x) in the PDF output. Is there something that I am doing wrong is is there a specific package I need to use?
Any help would be appreciated.
math-mode formatting pdftex
asked Sep 5 at 10:45
Timothy Susanto
383
I am currently working on a paper and require an equation with e^x. I tried using the suggested layout of $exp(x)$ but my output only shows an equation with exp(x) in the PDF output. Is there something that I am doing wrong is is there a specific package I need to use?
Any help would be appreciated.
math-mode formatting pdftex
math-mode formatting pdftex
asked Sep 5 at 10:45
Timothy Susanto
383
asked Sep 5 at 10:45
Timothy Susanto
383
edited Sep 5 at 10:53
asked Sep 5 at 10:45
Timothy Susanto
383
asked Sep 5 at 10:45
Timothy Susanto
383
asked Sep 5 at 10:45
Timothy Susanto
383
383
3
Welcome to TeX.SX! Your question is not very clear: does by any chance$e^x$do what you want?
– GuM
Sep 5 at 10:48
Yes it does but I am confused why the alternative notation would not work since I have ensured that I did not make any mistakes in writing the $exp(x)$
– Timothy Susanto
Sep 5 at 10:54
1
The alternative notation is just that: there is no “translation†ofexp(x)intoe^x. There are cases where the former notation is preferable to the latter.
– egreg
Sep 5 at 10:57
7
The inputexp(x)is specifically meant to generate the word “exp†(in upright font), a left parenthesis, an “x†in math italic font, and a closing parenthesis. In LaTeX, to add a superscript to something you must use the^notation. I advise you not to try to write anything in LaTeX without having previously read an introductory guide (at least).
– GuM
Sep 5 at 10:58
4
As already mentioned,expis an alternative notation toe^...that users should know. Sadly not everyone does. Consider[expbiggl(int_0^1 fdxbiggr) qquad e^int_0^1 fdx ]which of these are more redable? There are many examples of this where there are a short notation for simple input, and a companion notation for complicated input.
– daleif
Sep 5 at 11:05
 |Â
show 3 more comments
3
Welcome to TeX.SX! Your question is not very clear: does by any chance$e^x$do what you want?
– GuM
Sep 5 at 10:48
Yes it does but I am confused why the alternative notation would not work since I have ensured that I did not make any mistakes in writing the $exp(x)$
– Timothy Susanto
Sep 5 at 10:54
1
The alternative notation is just that: there is no “translation†ofexp(x)intoe^x. There are cases where the former notation is preferable to the latter.
– egreg
Sep 5 at 10:57
7
The inputexp(x)is specifically meant to generate the word “exp†(in upright font), a left parenthesis, an “x†in math italic font, and a closing parenthesis. In LaTeX, to add a superscript to something you must use the^notation. I advise you not to try to write anything in LaTeX without having previously read an introductory guide (at least).
– GuM
Sep 5 at 10:58
4
As already mentioned,expis an alternative notation toe^...that users should know. Sadly not everyone does. Consider[expbiggl(int_0^1 fdxbiggr) qquad e^int_0^1 fdx ]which of these are more redable? There are many examples of this where there are a short notation for simple input, and a companion notation for complicated input.
– daleif
Sep 5 at 11:05
3
3
Welcome to TeX.SX! Your question is not very clear: does by any chance
$e^x$ do what you want?– GuM
Sep 5 at 10:48
Welcome to TeX.SX! Your question is not very clear: does by any chance
$e^x$ do what you want?– GuM
Sep 5 at 10:48
Yes it does but I am confused why the alternative notation would not work since I have ensured that I did not make any mistakes in writing the $exp(x)$
– Timothy Susanto
Sep 5 at 10:54
Yes it does but I am confused why the alternative notation would not work since I have ensured that I did not make any mistakes in writing the $exp(x)$
– Timothy Susanto
Sep 5 at 10:54
1
1
The alternative notation is just that: there is no “translation†of
exp(x) into e^x. There are cases where the former notation is preferable to the latter.– egreg
Sep 5 at 10:57
The alternative notation is just that: there is no “translation†of
exp(x) into e^x. There are cases where the former notation is preferable to the latter.– egreg
Sep 5 at 10:57
7
7
The input
exp(x) is specifically meant to generate the word “exp†(in upright font), a left parenthesis, an “x†in math italic font, and a closing parenthesis. In LaTeX, to add a superscript to something you must use the ^ notation. I advise you not to try to write anything in LaTeX without having previously read an introductory guide (at least).– GuM
Sep 5 at 10:58
The input
exp(x) is specifically meant to generate the word “exp†(in upright font), a left parenthesis, an “x†in math italic font, and a closing parenthesis. In LaTeX, to add a superscript to something you must use the ^ notation. I advise you not to try to write anything in LaTeX without having previously read an introductory guide (at least).– GuM
Sep 5 at 10:58
4
4
As already mentioned,
exp is an alternative notation to e^... that users should know. Sadly not everyone does. Consider [expbiggl(int_0^1 fdxbiggr) qquad e^int_0^1 fdx ] which of these are more redable? There are many examples of this where there are a short notation for simple input, and a companion notation for complicated input.– daleif
Sep 5 at 11:05
As already mentioned,
exp is an alternative notation to e^... that users should know. Sadly not everyone does. Consider [expbiggl(int_0^1 fdxbiggr) qquad e^int_0^1 fdx ] which of these are more redable? There are many examples of this where there are a short notation for simple input, and a companion notation for complicated input.– daleif
Sep 5 at 11:05
 |Â
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
I think you may have misunderstood what you have been told.
exp(x) is not an alternative to e^x in LaTeX, exp(x) is an alternative to ex in maths and physics etc.
The exp(x) notation is useful where x is some large or complicated expression, e.g.:
[
expbiggl(, sum_n=1^10 frac1n biggr)
]
Which I certainly think is a big improvement over:
[
e^sum_n=1^10 frac1n
]
The ex notation is useful where x is something nice and small, like, well:
[
e^x
]
So LaTeX supports both, exp(x) for exp(x) and e^x for ex. exp(x) is not a LaTeX shorthand (longhand?) for e^x = ex.
edited Sep 5 at 14:46
David Richerby
1457
answered Sep 5 at 12:37
Au101
6,82632252
1
A further improvement is adding,betweenbiggl(andsum: try and judge for yourself.
– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:43
@egreg I wanted to do that, but I didn't trust my own judgement, I'll make the change, thanks!
– Au101
Sep 5 at 12:44
1
I recommend,also when a radical is followed by a parenthesis with a similar height, for instance (and in other cases).
– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:46
Good obs @egreg!! Do you know about automatic spacing? Why,but;no? Is subjective?
– manooooh
Sep 5 at 13:08
2
@manooooh;is too much; a thin space is usually the best.
– egreg
Sep 5 at 13:59
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
I think you may have misunderstood what you have been told.
exp(x) is not an alternative to e^x in LaTeX, exp(x) is an alternative to ex in maths and physics etc.
The exp(x) notation is useful where x is some large or complicated expression, e.g.:
[
expbiggl(, sum_n=1^10 frac1n biggr)
]
Which I certainly think is a big improvement over:
[
e^sum_n=1^10 frac1n
]
The ex notation is useful where x is something nice and small, like, well:
[
e^x
]
So LaTeX supports both, exp(x) for exp(x) and e^x for ex. exp(x) is not a LaTeX shorthand (longhand?) for e^x = ex.
edited Sep 5 at 14:46
David Richerby
1457
answered Sep 5 at 12:37
Au101
6,82632252
1
A further improvement is adding,betweenbiggl(andsum: try and judge for yourself.
– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:43
@egreg I wanted to do that, but I didn't trust my own judgement, I'll make the change, thanks!
– Au101
Sep 5 at 12:44
1
I recommend,also when a radical is followed by a parenthesis with a similar height, for instance (and in other cases).
– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:46
Good obs @egreg!! Do you know about automatic spacing? Why,but;no? Is subjective?
– manooooh
Sep 5 at 13:08
2
@manooooh;is too much; a thin space is usually the best.
– egreg
Sep 5 at 13:59
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
I think you may have misunderstood what you have been told.
exp(x) is not an alternative to e^x in LaTeX, exp(x) is an alternative to ex in maths and physics etc.
The exp(x) notation is useful where x is some large or complicated expression, e.g.:
[
expbiggl(, sum_n=1^10 frac1n biggr)
]
Which I certainly think is a big improvement over:
[
e^sum_n=1^10 frac1n
]
The ex notation is useful where x is something nice and small, like, well:
[
e^x
]
So LaTeX supports both, exp(x) for exp(x) and e^x for ex. exp(x) is not a LaTeX shorthand (longhand?) for e^x = ex.
edited Sep 5 at 14:46
David Richerby
1457
answered Sep 5 at 12:37
Au101
6,82632252
1
A further improvement is adding,betweenbiggl(andsum: try and judge for yourself.
– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:43
@egreg I wanted to do that, but I didn't trust my own judgement, I'll make the change, thanks!
– Au101
Sep 5 at 12:44
1
I recommend,also when a radical is followed by a parenthesis with a similar height, for instance (and in other cases).
– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:46
Good obs @egreg!! Do you know about automatic spacing? Why,but;no? Is subjective?
– manooooh
Sep 5 at 13:08
2
@manooooh;is too much; a thin space is usually the best.
– egreg
Sep 5 at 13:59
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
I think you may have misunderstood what you have been told.
exp(x) is not an alternative to e^x in LaTeX, exp(x) is an alternative to ex in maths and physics etc.
The exp(x) notation is useful where x is some large or complicated expression, e.g.:
[
expbiggl(, sum_n=1^10 frac1n biggr)
]
Which I certainly think is a big improvement over:
[
e^sum_n=1^10 frac1n
]
The ex notation is useful where x is something nice and small, like, well:
[
e^x
]
So LaTeX supports both, exp(x) for exp(x) and e^x for ex. exp(x) is not a LaTeX shorthand (longhand?) for e^x = ex.
edited Sep 5 at 14:46
David Richerby
1457
answered Sep 5 at 12:37
Au101
6,82632252
I think you may have misunderstood what you have been told.
exp(x) is not an alternative to e^x in LaTeX, exp(x) is an alternative to ex in maths and physics etc.
The exp(x) notation is useful where x is some large or complicated expression, e.g.:
[
expbiggl(, sum_n=1^10 frac1n biggr)
]
Which I certainly think is a big improvement over:
[
e^sum_n=1^10 frac1n
]
The ex notation is useful where x is something nice and small, like, well:
[
e^x
]
So LaTeX supports both, exp(x) for exp(x) and e^x for ex. exp(x) is not a LaTeX shorthand (longhand?) for e^x = ex.
edited Sep 5 at 14:46
David Richerby
1457
answered Sep 5 at 12:37
Au101
6,82632252
edited Sep 5 at 14:46
David Richerby
1457
edited Sep 5 at 14:46
David Richerby
1457
edited Sep 5 at 14:46
David Richerby
1457
1457
answered Sep 5 at 12:37
Au101
6,82632252
answered Sep 5 at 12:37
Au101
6,82632252
answered Sep 5 at 12:37
Au101
6,82632252
6,82632252
1
A further improvement is adding,betweenbiggl(andsum: try and judge for yourself.
– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:43
@egreg I wanted to do that, but I didn't trust my own judgement, I'll make the change, thanks!
– Au101
Sep 5 at 12:44
1
I recommend,also when a radical is followed by a parenthesis with a similar height, for instance (and in other cases).
– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:46
Good obs @egreg!! Do you know about automatic spacing? Why,but;no? Is subjective?
– manooooh
Sep 5 at 13:08
2
@manooooh;is too much; a thin space is usually the best.
– egreg
Sep 5 at 13:59
add a comment |Â
1
A further improvement is adding,betweenbiggl(andsum: try and judge for yourself.
– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:43
@egreg I wanted to do that, but I didn't trust my own judgement, I'll make the change, thanks!
– Au101
Sep 5 at 12:44
1
I recommend,also when a radical is followed by a parenthesis with a similar height, for instance (and in other cases).
– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:46
Good obs @egreg!! Do you know about automatic spacing? Why,but;no? Is subjective?
– manooooh
Sep 5 at 13:08
2
@manooooh;is too much; a thin space is usually the best.
– egreg
Sep 5 at 13:59
1
1
A further improvement is adding
, between biggl( and sum: try and judge for yourself.– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:43
A further improvement is adding
, between biggl( and sum: try and judge for yourself.– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:43
@egreg I wanted to do that, but I didn't trust my own judgement, I'll make the change, thanks!
– Au101
Sep 5 at 12:44
@egreg I wanted to do that, but I didn't trust my own judgement, I'll make the change, thanks!
– Au101
Sep 5 at 12:44
1
1
I recommend
, also when a radical is followed by a parenthesis with a similar height, for instance (and in other cases).– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:46
I recommend
, also when a radical is followed by a parenthesis with a similar height, for instance (and in other cases).– egreg
Sep 5 at 12:46
Good obs @egreg!! Do you know about automatic spacing? Why
, but ; no? Is subjective?– manooooh
Sep 5 at 13:08
Good obs @egreg!! Do you know about automatic spacing? Why
, but ; no? Is subjective?– manooooh
Sep 5 at 13:08
2
2
@manooooh
; is too much; a thin space is usually the best.– egreg
Sep 5 at 13:59
@manooooh
; is too much; a thin space is usually the best.– egreg
Sep 5 at 13:59
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f449427%2fwhy-does-the-expx-not-work-in-latex%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
3
Welcome to TeX.SX! Your question is not very clear: does by any chance
$e^x$do what you want?– GuM
Sep 5 at 10:48
Yes it does but I am confused why the alternative notation would not work since I have ensured that I did not make any mistakes in writing the $exp(x)$
– Timothy Susanto
Sep 5 at 10:54
1
The alternative notation is just that: there is no “translation†of
exp(x)intoe^x. There are cases where the former notation is preferable to the latter.– egreg
Sep 5 at 10:57
7
The input
exp(x)is specifically meant to generate the word “exp†(in upright font), a left parenthesis, an “x†in math italic font, and a closing parenthesis. In LaTeX, to add a superscript to something you must use the^notation. I advise you not to try to write anything in LaTeX without having previously read an introductory guide (at least).– GuM
Sep 5 at 10:58
4
As already mentioned,
expis an alternative notation toe^...that users should know. Sadly not everyone does. Consider[expbiggl(int_0^1 fdxbiggr) qquad e^int_0^1 fdx ]which of these are more redable? There are many examples of this where there are a short notation for simple input, and a companion notation for complicated input.– daleif
Sep 5 at 11:05