New math rendering engine
 

[$]2^{74,207,281}-1[/$]

This is using "[URL="https://www.mathjax.org/"]MathJax[/URL]" [$]\small\LaTeX[/$] tags.

The (overwhelming!) documentation is here: [URL]http://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/[/URL]

We are not sure if we will convert all of the previous BB Code [noparse][tex][/tex][/noparse] tags to use this new system.

From what we can tell, MathJax is vastly superior to our old system. (Plus, it uses less server resources!)

:mike:

Right click the image to get lots of options! (The zoom option is very useful!)

[$$] \sum_{i=1}^{n}x_i=\int_0^{1}f[/$$]

[STRIKE]We have enabled the "$" delimiter in the configuration file. Check this out for more info: [URL]http://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/tex.html#tex-and-latex-math-delimiters[/URL][/STRIKE]

:mike:

[$]B^e_a\cup t^i_F\cup \ell$![/$]

[$]\omega^{{\omega}^{\alpha}} \longrightarrow (\omega^{{\omega}^{\alpha}},3)^2[/$]

Nice.

A useful tool: [URL]http://detexify.kirelabs.org/classify.html[/URL]

A small tutorial: [url]http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference[/url]

:mike:

\(\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=0}^n i^3\)
 

Wow! It works in titles! (Hopefully that doesn't break anything!)

Edit: You have to use the "raw" delimiters in titles.

[CODE]\(...\)[/CODE]:mike:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;417626]Wow! It works in titles! (Hopefully that doesn't break anything!)

:mike:[/QUOTE]
Long-press on the formula works on my tablet.

\Bart \staveI \recycle

\langle \omega \rangle \text{ * } \oint \aleph_0 \uparrow \uparrow \aleph_0

[TEX]\Bart \staveI \recycle[/TEX]

[TEX]\langle \omega \rangle \text{ * } \oint \aleph_0 \uparrow \uparrow \aleph_0[/TEX]

*Edit: Hmmm, none of this seems to be rendered with the MathJax engine. How do you do that?!

[QUOTE=WraithX;417756]\Bart \staveI \recycle

\langle \omega \rangle \text{ * } \oint \aleph_0 \uparrow \uparrow \aleph_0

[TEX]\Bart \staveI \recycle[/TEX]

[TEX]\langle \omega \rangle \text{ * } \oint \aleph_0 \uparrow \uparrow \aleph_0[/TEX]

*Edit: Hmmm, none of this seems to be rendered with the MathJax engine. How do you do that?![/QUOTE]

$ before and after I know I tried to play around by quoting someone.

[QUOTE=WraithX;417756]\Bart \staveI \recycle

\langle \omega \rangle \text{ * } \oint \aleph_0 \uparrow \uparrow \aleph_0

[TEX]\Bart \staveI \recycle[/TEX]

[TEX]\langle \omega \rangle \text{ * } \oint \aleph_0 \uparrow \uparrow \aleph_0[/TEX]

*Edit: Hmmm, none of this seems to be rendered with the MathJax engine. How do you do that?![/QUOTE]
Try to quote my post and see how I did it

\(\langle \omega \rangle \text{ * } \oint \aleph_0 \uparrow \uparrow \aleph_0\)

edit: actually i love how the new one renders when i zoom in and out the text.
Good job Xyzzy!

[tex]x = {-b \pm \sqrt{b^2-4ac} \over 2a}[/tex]

:flex:

[$]x = {-b \pm \sqrt{b^2-4ac} \over 2a}[/$]

[$]\Gamma(0)=-1!={1 \over 0}-\gamma[/$] because [$]\Gamma(x)-1/x[/$] approaches [$]-\gamma[/$] as x approaches 0.

With the super-high DPI screen on our iPad, these formulas are rendered without any jagged lines.

We hope someday regular displays (non-Apple) have super-high DPI screens because we are definitely hooked on reading clear text!

:mike:

[QUOTE=Stargate38;417793][$]\Gamma(0)=-1!={1 \over 0}-\gamma[/$] because [$]\Gamma(x)-1/x[/$] approaches [$]-\gamma[/$] as x approaches 0.[/QUOTE]

Conflating "equals" with "approaches" is not a path to mathematical enlightenment. Or were you making a subtle joke?

Note to those of you who, like me, use site-selective Javascript enable/disablement - one must allow JS for both mersenneforum.org and mathjax.org in order to see the rendered TeX.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;417839]Note to those of you who, like me, use site-selective Javascript enable/disablement - one must allow JS for both mersenneforum.org and mathjax.org in order to see the rendered TeX.[/QUOTE]

I think it's worth it to see nicely formatted [tex]\LaTeX[/tex] though.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;417839]Note to those of you who, like me, use site-selective Javascript enable/disablement - one must allow JS for both mersenneforum.org and mathjax.org in order to see the rendered TeX.[/QUOTE]

Or the current version of MathJax could be hosted locally on the mersenneforum server. This would eliminate an external dependency, potentially allow for faster mathjax loading, and reduce Javascript (en|dis)ablement to just mersenneforum.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;417626](Hopefully that doesn't break anything!)[/QUOTE]All completely broken here. All I see are $ signs surrounding some rather unintuitive text.

$what is this?$

I assume it is because it requires JS? :sad:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;417839]Note to those of you who, like me, use site-selective Javascript enable/disablement - one must allow JS for both mersenneforum.org and mathjax.org in order to see the rendered TeX.[/QUOTE]Oh, I see. What happens when mathjax.org is down? Is relying upon external resources really a good idea? Should one trust mathjax.org (and mersenneforum.org) not to get hacked and take over ones computer and/or generally do bad things?

Also: Now all the dates are the nonsense (IMO) low information density "today" and "yesterday" etc. Archiving posts is now rendered silly with everything being "today". :sad::sad:

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;395286]Each GTX 580 will dump 200-250 watts into your coolant loop at stock clocks. That's a lot of radiator to add. I've never done water cooling because it's way cheaper to run on air.

I picked up a GTX 580 for $75 CAN on Saturday, off Kijiji. That's about $60 US at the moment. I had an available power supply that could handle it, so it was too tempting to not buy. I see another for sale at $80 CAN OBO, and [URL="http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Asus-GTX580-DirectCUII-/191505691555"]this one on eBay[/URL] for $72 CAN shipping included.[/QUOTE]

So is the intent to mangle all existing posts containing dollar signs? I think that's ludicrous.

[QUOTE=retina;417882]Also: Now all the dates are the nonsense (IMO) low information density "today" and "yesterday" etc. Archiving posts is now rendered silly with everything being "today". :sad::sad:[/QUOTE]

I also don't like the new dates.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;417889]So is the intent to mangle all existing posts containing dollar signs? I think that's ludicrous.[/QUOTE]

$ No only those with two not slashed dollar signs get mangled I think otherwise the last dollar sign would've been mangling things in that post. \$ See oh and that post could of just used CAD and USD and been fine.edit2+: I just quoted to check, I think as long as it contains anything tex can't/won't parse like the URL in between them it's fine as well.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;417839]Note to those of you who, like me, use site-selective Javascript enable/disablement - one must allow JS for both mersenneforum.org and mathjax.org in order to see the rendered TeX.[/QUOTE]I see the tex stuff perfectly fine.[QUOTE=ramshanker;417776][tex]x = {-b \pm \sqrt{b^2-4ac} \over 2a}[/tex][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=science_man_88;417894]$ No only those with two not slashed dollar signs get mangled I think otherwise the last dollar sign would've been mangling things in that post. \$ See oh and that post could of just used CAD and USD and been fine.edit2+: I just quoted to check, I think as long as it contains anything tex can't/won't parse like the URL in between them it's fine as well.[/QUOTE]

So is some admin going to edit all old posts to change every dollar sign to a backslash dollar sign or whatever is needed to undo any mangling? People in the past had no reason to expect putting dollar signs in a post would cause it to get mangled in the future.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;417896]So is some admin going to edit all old posts to change every dollar sign to a backslash dollar sign or whatever is needed to undo any mangling?[/QUOTE]Send us a PM with the link to the broken posts and we will fix them.

:mike:

[QUOTE=retina;417882]Is relying upon external resources really a good idea?[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/start.html[/URL]

[QUOTE]The easiest way to use MathJax is to link directly to the public installation available through the MathJax Content Distribution Network (CDN). When you use the MathJax CDN, there is no need to install MathJax yourself, and you can begin using MathJax right away

The CDN will automatically arrange for your readers to download MathJax files from a fast, nearby server. And since bug fixes and patches are deployed to the CDN as soon as they become available, your pages will always be up to date with the latest browser and devices.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;417897]Send us a PM with the link to the broken posts and we will fix them.

:mike:[/QUOTE]

Mike, you are being absolutely ridiculous. Do the global search [b]yourself[/b] to find them all. If you are going to so unreasonably break compatibility with existing posts, then you definitely ought to be prepared to do this yourself.

Even the Mathjax site itself warns [b]against[/b] using a single dollar sign as the delimiter. And noobs on the forum are not going to realize that a dollar sign is going to be treated as a special character. Use a better "escape sequence" and fix the posts in this thread is a much more sensible thing to do.

The $ issue is only going to affect posts that have multiple dollar signs in a single line.

Check out this thread: [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13922[/URL]

No problems despite lots of $ signs. (Okay, a few, but we fixed those!)

The few broken posts will be easy to fix once identified.

:mike:

[QUOTE=WraithX;417879]Or the current version of MathJax could be hosted locally on the mersenneforum server. This would eliminate an external dependency, potentially allow for faster mathjax loading, and reduce Javascript (en|dis)ablement to just mersenneforum.[/QUOTE]That is an option if enough people want to go that way. (We like not having to worry about updates but we are willing to do a little extra work if necessary.)

:mike:

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;417899]Even the Mathjax site itself warns [b]against[/b] using a single dollar sign as the delimiter. And noobs on the forum are not going to realize that a dollar sign is going to be treated as a special character. Use a better "escape sequence" and fix the posts in this thread is a much more sensible thing to do.[/QUOTE]+1 about the escape sequence.

+1 also about the dates (I would prefer to have all dates and times in ISO format as on the GIMPS site (yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm[:ss]...)

Many thanks for the hosting, maintaining of the forum nevertheless !

Jacob

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;417901]The $ issue is only going to affect posts that have multiple dollar signs in a single line.[/QUOTE]

[b]Absolutely false[/b] as [url=]this post[/url] clearly shows. I suspect there are a lots of broken posts.

This is such a [b]bad design[/b] I can't believe you want to use it. Even MathJax warns you not use a single dollar sign as the delimiter and deliberately does not make it their default (so their site says).

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;417905][b]Absolutely false[/b] as [post=74889]this post[/post] clearly shows. I suspect there are a lots of broken posts.[/QUOTE]
Sorry about the bad link in that post. Fixed it in the above quote (used proper "post" tag as well).

[QUOTE=retina;417895]I see the tex stuff perfectly fine.[/QUOTE]

Anyone using default browser settings will - do you only allow site-specific JS, or allow-for-all?

Mike, I agree with Mr. Cuber that anything that mangles existing posts is a *really* bad idea - and this would not be the first time, either. People put actual time and effort into such formatted posting, throwing them under the bus "because new and shiny!" sends a terrible message about the extent to which their contributions are valued. It's not like the existing TeX support is terribly difficult. You're basically throwing away many thousands of already-made user keystrokes and probably hundreds of hours of preview/format/edit time in order to save some modest number of not-yet-made keystrokes.

I only recently started spending the extra effort to Texify some math-heavy posts - this proposal isn't incentivizing me to continue in that regard.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;417948]I only recently started spending the extra effort to Texify some math-heavy posts - this proposal isn't incentivizing me to continue in that regard.[/QUOTE]

from what I've found it's mostly things like ( and I'll tex the dollar signs to make sure they show up) y US[TEX]$[/TEX](x US[TEX]$[/TEX],z) which turn into y US$(x US$,z) where y and x are values and z is a year in the economics sections and code ( that can sometimes use dollar signs) that isn't in code tags I think.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;417948]do you only allow site-specific JS, or allow-for-all?[/QUOTE]I don't allow JS for anything. I have completely disabled it. Even if I wanted to run it I can't, unless I go temporarily insane and decide to install a new browser.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;417948]Mike, I agree with Mr. Cuber that anything that mangles existing posts is a *really* bad idea - and this would not be the first time, either. People put actual time and effort into such formatted posting, throwing them under the bus "because new and shiny!" sends a terrible message about the extent to which their contributions are valued. It's not like the existing TeX support is terribly difficult. You're basically throwing away many thousands of already-made user keystrokes and probably hundreds of hours of preview/format/edit time in order to save some modest number of not-yet-made keystrokes.[/QUOTE]We have spent quite a bit of time examining old posts to make sure that what we are doing works out in the end. Nobody is being thrown under a bus with this change. We have modified some posts today that needed a backslash in front of the dollar sign. No formatting was munged and no meaning was altered. We read every post made on the forum so if someone experiences difficulty posting we will certainly assist them.

The only fly in the ointment is those who do not use JavaScript. We understand that some people like things to be a certain way. We don't have Flash installed on any of our computers. We probably miss out on some cool stuff, but we made that decision knowing that we might miss something. We are not sure how many users do not enable JavaScript, but we expect it is very few. (And we do care about them!)

The benefits to the new math rendering system far outweigh the drawbacks. Plus, it costs us nothing to keep the old system around for those who choose to use it. Since this is primarily a mathematics forum, it makes sense to prioritize mathematical writing above all else. The ability to type math statements out quickly and efficiently (using \$ for the inline delimiter) is worth the small inconvenience it causes when using the dollar sign in other ways. It isn't all about saving keystrokes. It is about the flow of work. We hope the new streamlined method encourages everyone to use it more. We are even learning how to use it now that it is less cumbersome!

In the past we have made some forum decisions that were not-so-popular. Over time, we have drifted to posting polls or requesting feedback for new features and stuff. We are very hesitant to make changes because it is impossible to please everybody all of the time. The time and date stamp for posts is a good example. The other day we updated some (unrelated) options in the control panel and accidentally reset the time and date stamp to the "enhanced" flavor. Within a short time there were comments about it. We decided to let the option stick for a day or so to see how much feedback there would be. Unsurprisingly, the feedback was intensely negative, so we trudged back into the control panel and flipped the necessary switches. (There are a lot of switches!)

Overall, we think that this forum provides a pretty decent place for people to congregate and discuss things. From the beginning we have tried to keep things as lean and simple as possible. The message (content) is what makes this forum such a fantastic place. Our fundamental mission is to deliver that content with as little distraction as possible. No ads. No overbearing social media plugins. No signatures. Minimal avatars. Any decision that the user can make we have enabled. If we haven't enabled it and it is there it is because we do not know about it or we do not understand it. If there was a way to provide custom time and date stamps for each user we would love to offer that option.

We all know that the forum allows us to partake in some silliness. Without feedback from the users and the mods we are certain we would run this place into the ground. We like to think we have found a level of silliness that is acceptable to most people. Certain things tweak certain people certain ways but that is expected since all of us are different. If we have learned anything over the lifespan of this forum it is to think about things from other people's point of view. We are honored that we are even allowed to hang out here, because in real life this forum would be like a giant university lecture room full of scientists and students, and we would be the guy emptying the trash and polishing the floor.

As usual, we are rambling!

:mike:

[QUOTE=retina;417963]I don't allow JS for anything. I have completely disabled it. Even if I wanted to run it I can't, unless I go temporarily insane and decide to install a new browser.[/QUOTE]

Well, you must be using some kind of magic I don't possess, because for me using FF it definitely requires JS for the 2 sites I mentioned to be enabled. I can even see the 2-step process as the page loads - first the plaintext, then a split-second afterward it gets reformatted.

Mike, another potential problem, which may be browser-specific, but which I see, repeatably: After about 10 seconds the rendered math converts to horizontal lines, as illustrated below in the before and after screenshots. I'm using an older version (22.0) of FF on this here Mac, don't feel like upgrading because all versions after that have the 'image display' checkbox removed from the user options menu. (There's a 3rd-party plugin now to again restore control over that bandwidth-hoggishness (not loading images is a big speedup in a slow shared-WiFi setting), but why should I install extra crap just to regain control over a feature Mozilla should never have removed from User Options to begin with?)

Does anyone else experience this 'flatlining' behavior?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;417990]Well, you must be using some kind of magic I don't possess, because for me using FF it definitely requires JS for the 2 sites I mentioned to be enabled. I can even see the 2-step process as the page loads - first the plaintext, then a split-second afterward it gets reformatted.[/QUOTE]The stuff in the tex tags doesn't need JS. They are images.

ramshanker's post: [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=417776#post417776[/url]

Gives me this image: http://www.mersenneforum.org/cgi-bin/mimetex.cgi?x%20=%20{-b%20\pm%20\sqrt{b^2-4ac}%20\over%202a}

[QUOTE=ewmayer;417990]I'm using an older version (22.0) of FF on this here Mac, don't feel like upgrading because all versions after that have the 'image display' checkbox removed from the user options menu. (There's a 3rd-party plugin now to again restore control over that bandwidth-hoggishness (not loading images is a big speedup in a slow shared-WiFi setting), but why should I install extra crap just to regain control over a feature Mozilla should never have removed from User Options to begin with?)[/QUOTE]If the option is in "about:config" is that acceptable?

[URL]https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/981640[/URL]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;417990]Does anyone else experience this 'flatlining' behavior?[/QUOTE]Here is their open-issue page: [URL]https://github.com/mathjax/MathJax/issues[/URL]

Here is a set of test pages using the forum server to source the JavaScript files:

[URL]http://mersenneforum.org/MathJax/test/examples.html[/URL]

(The last link in that page shows a log of what is going on.)

:mike:

We have loaded the JavaScript files onto the forum server so now everything is loaded from one source. We don't think we have broken anything but if we have please let us know.

:mike:

I can understand not wanting a lot of JS even the majority. I think that it is a common enough tool that rather than turning it off it is much better to use something like noscript. The sites that bug me are the ones that reference JS from loads of different sites and those in turn reference more.

[QUOTE=henryzz;418007]I can understand not wanting a lot of JS even the majority. I think that it is a common enough tool that rather than turning it off it is much better to use something like noscript. The sites that bug me are the ones that reference JS from loads of different sites and those in turn reference more.[/QUOTE]This is a fun site: [url]http://www.lingscars.com/[/url]

:mike:

programming forum
 

I've mostly been looking at the soapbox to see what's messed up but I know from wikipedia it can also mess up programming so is there anything I should look for that's not on wikipedia that might find results that are messed up ?

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;418001]
Here is a set of test pages using the forum server to source the JavaScript files:

[URL]http://mersenneforum.org/MathJax/test/examples.html[/URL]

(The last link in that page shows a log of what is going on.)

:mike:[/QUOTE]
[noparse]
I've been restricting my tablet browser here for a few days with JavaScript only enabled for specific sites using the Kindle Fire Silk Browser.

Initially I added:
www.mersenneforum.org

The new math here and forum activities seemed to work fine with that single permission.

After reading a post by Ernst about needing mathjax site permissions I added
mathjax.org
cdn.mathjax.org
www.mathjax.org

In my case it mysteriously didn't seem to need those mathjax sites enabled but I entered them anyway.
I know the my overall JavaScript permission is working because in the case of YouTube I added the following three lines one at a time before YouTube worked for me:
youtube.com
m.youtube.com
www.youtube.com

I thought I had full functionality but just now found that the forum server hosted JavaScript from Mikes link that I quoted above also needed me to add:
mersenneforum.org. -- without any "www." for the forum server hosted JavaScript pages to work.
[/noparse]
The math is very beautiful on my 323 ppi tablet.

[QUOTE=retina;417991]The stuff in the tex tags doesn't need JS. They are images.[/QUOTE]

No shit - but this thread is specifically about the new mathjax rendering engine, not the legacy tex-tags one - for the old one I need to turn on image rendering, so in that regard mathjax is actually better for me. Am I speaking !$&^#* Greek that that was not clear that I was referring to the new system, subject of this thread?

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;418001]If the option is in "about:config" is that acceptable?[/QUOTE]

No - compare the toggle sequences:

OLD: 'ctrl-,' to bring up user options, click image checkbox, 'ctrl-r' to reload page. Or for a single image, right-click on the image-stub and 'view image'.

NEW: 'ctrl-l' to put cursor into URL field, start typing 'about...', hope for an auto-completion. Once that page loads, type the leftmost letters of the image-enablement sekrit string until you find the one (of many) you need. Right-click on the entry, select 'Modify', then edit the value to enable, 'OK', then reload the page in question. When you want to revert to no-images mode, you must repeat the whole procedure.

I am surprised all those new fancy browsers don't support site specific image rendering. Maybe everyone here should consider upgrading to FF 3.6 like I have, because that supports a simple option of "Load images automatically" and an "Exception" button beside it. So I can untick the "Load images automatically" and then choose "Exceptions" to add particular sites I want to allow.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;418054]No - compare the toggle sequences:[/QUOTE]We didn't know you toggled back and forth.

Your plight makes much more sense now.

It is very surprising there is no toggle or site-specific rules for images. It wouldn't be that hard to add. They have stuff like that for everything else.

:mike:

a few things that may stop some of the carnage this thing could of caused is that many of the tags that are used here interfere with it so that only text area's that are unimpeded by something else like code tags are likely to produce this mangled post scenario. also things inside code tags are not affected so only code using two outside a code box might have a chance to be affected. lists with list tags are not affected etc:

examples:

$ affected $

$[CODE]not affected[/CODE] $

[QUOTE]$ affected $[/QUOTE]

$[QUOTE] not affected[/QUOTE] \$

$[LIST=1][*]not affected[/LIST]$
[LIST=1][*]$affected$[/LIST]
[QUOTE]$\ not affected \$[/QUOTE]

anyways I'm being too obvious with my examples I bet.

my point is that the statements s that will need fixing are s that aren't in S, where S is are the statements not incompatible with TeX.

for those of you who want to keep score of things the URL's I've sent Xyzzy lately to "fix" things:

if I've kept everything updated I think there's 135 so far that I've found. but I've also checked a good 900+ posts I think

after checking Mystery Economic Theatre 2013 page by page ( 29 pages I think) and checking if I had them I've added another 34 roughly. edit:( okay only about 16 of those are from that one thread), the good part is that the fixing process if it find quoted ones will grow quite a bit so one post with 2 quoted would fix all three and if those two quote 2 etc.

just thought I'd update people I found a few more but more interestingly I found a quicker way to look for them that I totally forgot about the printer friendly versions of threads still have the dollar signs so I can search the printer friendly versions of threads ( at up to 97 posts per page) and find all the ones that may cause problems ( oddly a few have been found that seem not to have an issue when at last check they should so I'd still need to double check, but this method allowed me to check the whole of the PARI commands thread quite quickly because it took what was over 230 pages long at the forum default down to 27 pages to use my browsers find function on.)

sorry for spamming this thread , my condolences to the Hardware forum Mods in the last couple of hours alone I've used a few ways to find mangled posts and I found over 70 of them that I've already sent off to Xyzzy so I hope you don't get overworked ( I'll have to put them in my file later).

[QUOTE=ewmayer;417990]Mike, another potential problem, which may be browser-specific, but which I see, repeatably: After about 10 seconds the rendered math converts to horizontal lines, as illustrated below in the before and after screenshots. I'm using an older version (22.0) of FF on this here Mac, don't feel like upgrading because all versions after that have the 'image display' checkbox removed from the user options menu. (There's a 3rd-party plugin now to again restore control over that bandwidth-hoggishness (not loading images is a big speedup in a slow shared-WiFi setting), but why should I install extra crap just to regain control over a feature Mozilla should never have removed from User Options to begin with?)

Does anyone else experience this 'flatlining' behavior?[/QUOTE]<aol>Me too!!!</aol>

To some extent, anyway. Some, but only some, examples show the behaviour you describe. I'm running [code]About Opera
Version information
Version
12.16
Build
1860
Platform
Linux
System
x86_64, 4.0.5-gentoo
Browser identification

Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux x86_64) Presto/2.12.388 Version/12.16[/code]
it would appear.

Don't know if subsequent personalization has changed the behaviour to what I see.

Do you see the same phenomenon at [url]http://www.rechenkraft.net/aliquot/intro-analysis.html[/url] ?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;418520]Do you see the same phenomenon at [url]http://www.rechenkraft.net/aliquot/intro-analysis.html[/url] ?[/QUOTE]Not obviously so, though there is rather a lot of TeX on that page.

On MF only some of the TeX shows the behaviour in question. Much of it renders just fine. No, I don't know why that should be.

In my experience with the link I posted, MathJax has a "quick preview" followed by better-rendered images that follow shortly thereafter, where "shortly" depends on the total quantity of rendering done. On my page, given the considerable amount of TeX, the delay is on the order of 5-10 seconds. Perhaps something similar is happening to you and Ernst, where the issue is with some specifics of the better rendering.

What happens if either of you right click on some rendered TeX here in this thread, and deselect Math Settings > Math Renderer > Fast Preview ?

another update I'm now done page 6 sorted by number of replies and PARI suggest by estimate I'm now roughly 52.2 percent through the posts in the hardware forum that are visible by forum defaults. only about another 40 or fewer work hours to go until I should have most of those scanned by eye ( or using find and advanced thread search) switched methods by increasing my setting to 97 instead of using the printer friendly, it had a few that seemed like they would and they wouldn't be also I had to do one thread at a time now I can in theory open a whole listed page of them at once and go through them, as they are of a length of under 25 replies now each.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;418574]another update I'm now done page 6 sorted by number of replies and PARI suggest by estimate I'm now roughly 52.2 percent through the posts in the hardware forum that are visible by forum defaults. only about another 40 or fewer work hours to go until I should have most of those scanned by eye ( or using find and advanced thread search) switched methods by increasing my setting to 97 instead of using the printer friendly, it had a few that seemed like they would and they wouldn't be also I had to do one thread at a time now I can in theory open a whole listed page of them at once and go through them, as they are of a length of under 25 replies now each.[/QUOTE]Wow, all that work. When it would have been simpler to make it two dollars symbols ($$) instead of one ($). I expect there are far fewer posts with two consecutive $$ than there are one $.

[QUOTE=retina;418576]Wow, all that work. When it would have been simpler to make it two dollars symbols ($$) instead of one ($). I expect there are far fewer posts with two consecutive $$ than there are one $.[/QUOTE]

I found one post with 5 in a row it's just not affected in fact a lot with 2 or more aren't affected . there would still be some affected edit: probably. I'm not all that worried only about 400 more to find in the hardware forum based on what percentage of the forum default I'm at. edit:BTW I suspect it still would be easier but I leave that decision up to the admins. oh and another thing 2 also works it's just indented. edit4: it's actually not hard to find the majority of them and in theory Xyzzy knows how many there are altogether for posts with a dollar sign and if no duplicates exist among my file that I have on my computer and what I've sent him since clearing my Sent folder I've already found 642 over 100 of which have been fixed at last check. over 400 of those were found in the hardware forum in the lengthiest threads.

[QUOTE=retina;418576]Wow, all that work. When it would have been simpler to make it two dollars symbols[/QUOTE]

Except that two dollar symbols in a row are [b]already being used[/b] for "non-inline" MathJax content.

These are the default delimiters that TeX files use, which is why apparently it is so desirable to use them.

I note that for "inline" MathJax content, there are actually [b]two[/b] choices that have been enabled:

1. a single dollar sign for the beginning delimiter and also as the ending delimiter
2. a backslash left-parenthesis for the beginning delimiter and backslash right-parenthesis for the ending delimiter.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;418579]Except that two dollar symbols in a row are [b]already being used[/b] for "non-inline" MathJax content.[/QUOTE]Okay, I clearly didn't read this thread properly. And $ since $ I don't see anything with this $ new fangled engine $ I have no idea if $$ things are messed up or not $$. :razz:

[size=1]But I do think that using a single $ symbol is not the best of ideas. It has other common uses also, the most obvious of which is for currency. [color=grey]So where is my $1,000,000?[/color][/size]

[url]http://docs.mathjax.org/en/latest/tex.html[/url] here the fun read for everyone.

I realize now my counts using what I send Xyzzy aren't likely accurate because it counts the quick reply as well. either way I sent at least another 59 today.

Editing all of these messages would go a lot faster if the messages themselves were boring. We keep drifting away from the editing mode to reading mode!

:razz:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;418701]Editing all of these messages would go a lot faster if the messages themselves were boring. We keep drifting away from the editing mode to reading mode!

:razz:[/QUOTE]

sorry I'm overly talkative:

it looks like that drops the count significantly. I'm not sure I copied in all that I sent but I think it was the find search I was doing to find out how many http where in the page that went wrong. 486 is the new number. someone could try the software or programming forums maybe.

UPDATE
 

I got back after taking a break from it and I'm now at 699 that I've sent Xyzzy or will soon.

:beatdown:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;419741]:beatdown:[/QUOTE]

BTW I'm working on a GPU thread and I forgot to send myself the place I was at but it has more posts in it than the hardware forum's default of total threads and I'm down to around the 400's out of 3899 posts.

edit:did I say more than ... I meant to nearly 4 times more posts.