How to get delimiters of the same size when using fourier?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












Consider the following MWE:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

begingather*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauleft[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

begingather*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauBigg[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBigg]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

enddocument


As you can see in the screenshot below, the squared parentheses of the two parts of the expression are not of the same size. I've been playing around to get them of the same size, but it turns out that I can only do so by commenting usepackagefourier, something I would personally like to avoid. Using left[right] is too big (case 1), whereas using Bigg[Bigg] (the biggest I know) is not big enough (case 2).



enter image description here



My question is thus simple: how can I get them of the same size without dropping usepackagefourier?



Thank you all very much for your time and effort.










share|improve this question

















  • 1




    You could use, for instance, renewcommandBIGbBigg@3, then use BIG instead.
    – Phelype Oleinik
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    <<case 2 id fine for me. I don't think delimiters have to encompass the totality of the sum symbol, including the indices.
    – Bernard
    5 hours ago










  • @PhelypeOleinik Thank you for your comment. If it were an answer, I'd accept it...
    – Héctor
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Yes, but the simplest solution consists in using something like Biggl[ ... Biggr] in both cases.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    That's a possibility. Personally, I very rarely use left ...right.. The horizontal spacing is better.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago














up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












Consider the following MWE:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

begingather*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauleft[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

begingather*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauBigg[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBigg]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

enddocument


As you can see in the screenshot below, the squared parentheses of the two parts of the expression are not of the same size. I've been playing around to get them of the same size, but it turns out that I can only do so by commenting usepackagefourier, something I would personally like to avoid. Using left[right] is too big (case 1), whereas using Bigg[Bigg] (the biggest I know) is not big enough (case 2).



enter image description here



My question is thus simple: how can I get them of the same size without dropping usepackagefourier?



Thank you all very much for your time and effort.










share|improve this question

















  • 1




    You could use, for instance, renewcommandBIGbBigg@3, then use BIG instead.
    – Phelype Oleinik
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    <<case 2 id fine for me. I don't think delimiters have to encompass the totality of the sum symbol, including the indices.
    – Bernard
    5 hours ago










  • @PhelypeOleinik Thank you for your comment. If it were an answer, I'd accept it...
    – Héctor
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Yes, but the simplest solution consists in using something like Biggl[ ... Biggr] in both cases.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    That's a possibility. Personally, I very rarely use left ...right.. The horizontal spacing is better.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago












up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1






1





Consider the following MWE:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

begingather*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauleft[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

begingather*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauBigg[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBigg]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

enddocument


As you can see in the screenshot below, the squared parentheses of the two parts of the expression are not of the same size. I've been playing around to get them of the same size, but it turns out that I can only do so by commenting usepackagefourier, something I would personally like to avoid. Using left[right] is too big (case 1), whereas using Bigg[Bigg] (the biggest I know) is not big enough (case 2).



enter image description here



My question is thus simple: how can I get them of the same size without dropping usepackagefourier?



Thank you all very much for your time and effort.










share|improve this question













Consider the following MWE:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

begingather*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauleft[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

begingather*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauBigg[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBigg]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

enddocument


As you can see in the screenshot below, the squared parentheses of the two parts of the expression are not of the same size. I've been playing around to get them of the same size, but it turns out that I can only do so by commenting usepackagefourier, something I would personally like to avoid. Using left[right] is too big (case 1), whereas using Bigg[Bigg] (the biggest I know) is not big enough (case 2).



enter image description here



My question is thus simple: how can I get them of the same size without dropping usepackagefourier?



Thank you all very much for your time and effort.







fourier






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 5 hours ago









Héctor

764316




764316







  • 1




    You could use, for instance, renewcommandBIGbBigg@3, then use BIG instead.
    – Phelype Oleinik
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    <<case 2 id fine for me. I don't think delimiters have to encompass the totality of the sum symbol, including the indices.
    – Bernard
    5 hours ago










  • @PhelypeOleinik Thank you for your comment. If it were an answer, I'd accept it...
    – Héctor
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Yes, but the simplest solution consists in using something like Biggl[ ... Biggr] in both cases.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    That's a possibility. Personally, I very rarely use left ...right.. The horizontal spacing is better.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago












  • 1




    You could use, for instance, renewcommandBIGbBigg@3, then use BIG instead.
    – Phelype Oleinik
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    <<case 2 id fine for me. I don't think delimiters have to encompass the totality of the sum symbol, including the indices.
    – Bernard
    5 hours ago










  • @PhelypeOleinik Thank you for your comment. If it were an answer, I'd accept it...
    – Héctor
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Yes, but the simplest solution consists in using something like Biggl[ ... Biggr] in both cases.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    That's a possibility. Personally, I very rarely use left ...right.. The horizontal spacing is better.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago







1




1




You could use, for instance, renewcommandBIGbBigg@3, then use BIG instead.
– Phelype Oleinik
5 hours ago




You could use, for instance, renewcommandBIGbBigg@3, then use BIG instead.
– Phelype Oleinik
5 hours ago




1




1




<<case 2 id fine for me. I don't think delimiters have to encompass the totality of the sum symbol, including the indices.
– Bernard
5 hours ago




<<case 2 id fine for me. I don't think delimiters have to encompass the totality of the sum symbol, including the indices.
– Bernard
5 hours ago












@PhelypeOleinik Thank you for your comment. If it were an answer, I'd accept it...
– Héctor
4 hours ago




@PhelypeOleinik Thank you for your comment. If it were an answer, I'd accept it...
– Héctor
4 hours ago




1




1




Yes, but the simplest solution consists in using something like Biggl[ ... Biggr] in both cases.
– Bernard
4 hours ago





Yes, but the simplest solution consists in using something like Biggl[ ... Biggr] in both cases.
– Bernard
4 hours ago





1




1




That's a possibility. Personally, I very rarely use left ...right.. The horizontal spacing is better.
– Bernard
4 hours ago




That's a possibility. Personally, I very rarely use left ...right.. The horizontal spacing is better.
– Bernard
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










What is causing you this trouble is the i lowered a tad too much:




enter image description here




There are a few approaches to overcome this and get the delimiter size you want. To name a few:




  • You can smash the i to make it have zero depth and height, then it won't be a problem anymore:



    beginequation*
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
    +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • You can also change TeX's delimiterfactor and delimitershortfall and let TeX adjust the delimiters accordingly:



    beginequation*
    delimitershortfall=7pt % Found by trial-and-error
    delimiterfactor=810 % Move outside the `equation*` to make the effect global
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
    +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • Or you can define a new size with amsmath's (loaded by mathtools) bBigg@. Note that simply using BIG you get a different spacing around the delimiters.



    makeatletter
    defBIGbBigg@3 % big = 1; Big = 1.5; bigg = 2; and Bigg = 2.5
    defBIGlmathopenBIG
    defBIGrmathcloseBIG
    makeatother

    beginequation*
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    endequation*


Full code:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
delimitershortfall=7pt
delimiterfactor=810
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

makeatletter
defBIGbBigg@3
defBIGlmathopenBIG
defBIGrmathcloseBIG
makeatother

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
+(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
endequation*

enddocument



enter image description here







share|improve this answer




















  • Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
    – Héctor
    3 hours ago










Your Answer







StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f455336%2fhow-to-get-delimiters-of-the-same-size-when-using-fourier%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote



accepted










What is causing you this trouble is the i lowered a tad too much:




enter image description here




There are a few approaches to overcome this and get the delimiter size you want. To name a few:




  • You can smash the i to make it have zero depth and height, then it won't be a problem anymore:



    beginequation*
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
    +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • You can also change TeX's delimiterfactor and delimitershortfall and let TeX adjust the delimiters accordingly:



    beginequation*
    delimitershortfall=7pt % Found by trial-and-error
    delimiterfactor=810 % Move outside the `equation*` to make the effect global
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
    +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • Or you can define a new size with amsmath's (loaded by mathtools) bBigg@. Note that simply using BIG you get a different spacing around the delimiters.



    makeatletter
    defBIGbBigg@3 % big = 1; Big = 1.5; bigg = 2; and Bigg = 2.5
    defBIGlmathopenBIG
    defBIGrmathcloseBIG
    makeatother

    beginequation*
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    endequation*


Full code:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
delimitershortfall=7pt
delimiterfactor=810
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

makeatletter
defBIGbBigg@3
defBIGlmathopenBIG
defBIGrmathcloseBIG
makeatother

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
+(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
endequation*

enddocument



enter image description here







share|improve this answer




















  • Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
    – Héctor
    3 hours ago














up vote
4
down vote



accepted










What is causing you this trouble is the i lowered a tad too much:




enter image description here




There are a few approaches to overcome this and get the delimiter size you want. To name a few:




  • You can smash the i to make it have zero depth and height, then it won't be a problem anymore:



    beginequation*
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
    +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • You can also change TeX's delimiterfactor and delimitershortfall and let TeX adjust the delimiters accordingly:



    beginequation*
    delimitershortfall=7pt % Found by trial-and-error
    delimiterfactor=810 % Move outside the `equation*` to make the effect global
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
    +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • Or you can define a new size with amsmath's (loaded by mathtools) bBigg@. Note that simply using BIG you get a different spacing around the delimiters.



    makeatletter
    defBIGbBigg@3 % big = 1; Big = 1.5; bigg = 2; and Bigg = 2.5
    defBIGlmathopenBIG
    defBIGrmathcloseBIG
    makeatother

    beginequation*
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    endequation*


Full code:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
delimitershortfall=7pt
delimiterfactor=810
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

makeatletter
defBIGbBigg@3
defBIGlmathopenBIG
defBIGrmathcloseBIG
makeatother

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
+(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
endequation*

enddocument



enter image description here







share|improve this answer




















  • Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
    – Héctor
    3 hours ago












up vote
4
down vote



accepted







up vote
4
down vote



accepted






What is causing you this trouble is the i lowered a tad too much:




enter image description here




There are a few approaches to overcome this and get the delimiter size you want. To name a few:




  • You can smash the i to make it have zero depth and height, then it won't be a problem anymore:



    beginequation*
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
    +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • You can also change TeX's delimiterfactor and delimitershortfall and let TeX adjust the delimiters accordingly:



    beginequation*
    delimitershortfall=7pt % Found by trial-and-error
    delimiterfactor=810 % Move outside the `equation*` to make the effect global
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
    +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • Or you can define a new size with amsmath's (loaded by mathtools) bBigg@. Note that simply using BIG you get a different spacing around the delimiters.



    makeatletter
    defBIGbBigg@3 % big = 1; Big = 1.5; bigg = 2; and Bigg = 2.5
    defBIGlmathopenBIG
    defBIGrmathcloseBIG
    makeatother

    beginequation*
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    endequation*


Full code:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
delimitershortfall=7pt
delimiterfactor=810
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

makeatletter
defBIGbBigg@3
defBIGlmathopenBIG
defBIGrmathcloseBIG
makeatother

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
+(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
endequation*

enddocument



enter image description here







share|improve this answer












What is causing you this trouble is the i lowered a tad too much:




enter image description here




There are a few approaches to overcome this and get the delimiter size you want. To name a few:




  • You can smash the i to make it have zero depth and height, then it won't be a problem anymore:



    beginequation*
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
    +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • You can also change TeX's delimiterfactor and delimitershortfall and let TeX adjust the delimiters accordingly:



    beginequation*
    delimitershortfall=7pt % Found by trial-and-error
    delimiterfactor=810 % Move outside the `equation*` to make the effect global
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
    +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • Or you can define a new size with amsmath's (loaded by mathtools) bBigg@. Note that simply using BIG you get a different spacing around the delimiters.



    makeatletter
    defBIGbBigg@3 % big = 1; Big = 1.5; bigg = 2; and Bigg = 2.5
    defBIGlmathopenBIG
    defBIGrmathcloseBIG
    makeatother

    beginequation*
    sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
    tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    endequation*


Full code:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
delimitershortfall=7pt
delimiterfactor=810
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

makeatletter
defBIGbBigg@3
defBIGlmathopenBIG
defBIGrmathcloseBIG
makeatother

beginequation*
sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
+(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
endequation*

enddocument



enter image description here








share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 3 hours ago









Phelype Oleinik

18.3k53972




18.3k53972











  • Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
    – Héctor
    3 hours ago
















  • Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
    – Héctor
    3 hours ago















Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
– Héctor
3 hours ago




Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
– Héctor
3 hours ago

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f455336%2fhow-to-get-delimiters-of-the-same-size-when-using-fourier%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?