LaTeX Typesetting Question

[flouran]

Another question. I was looking at one of Pomerance's papers, and I was wondering how Pomerance's notation for the pseudoprime counting function could be typeset in LaTeX?

[Zeta-Flux]

flouran,

Sorry for forgetting about those help files. I tried attaching them, but they exceed the file size limit. Sorry.

As for your question: I've never seen that symbol before. I would probably use \mathcal{P}, which isn't nearly as fancy, but works. Or maybe \mathfrak{P}.

[frmky]

Originally Posted by flouran

Another question. I was looking at one of Pomerance's papers, and I was wondering how Pomerance's notation for the pseudoprime counting function could be typeset in LaTeX?

Reasonable approximations are

\usepackage{mathrsfs}
$\mathscr{P}_b(x)$

or

\usepackage{eucal}
$\mathcal{P}_b(x)$

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by frmky

\usepackage{mathrsfs}
$\mathscr{P}_b(x)$

Yeah, that's a pretty good approximation.

[flouran]

All of my equations for all of my LaTeX documents are automatically labeled (for instance, the first equation is (1), the second equation is (2), etc.). But, I was wondering how I could prevent only one equation from not being labeled....

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by flouran

All of my equations for all of my LaTeX documents are automatically labeled (for instance, the first equation is (1), the second equation is (2), etc.). But, I was wondering how I could prevent only one equation from not being labeled....

You can't prevent one from not being labeled because none of them are not labeled, by your description. But you can use \[ ... \] instead of \begin{equation} ... \end{equation} to stop one from being labeled.

[flouran]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

You can't prevent one from not being labeled because none of them are not labeled, by your description. But you can use \[ ... \] instead of \begin{equation} ... \end{equation} to stop one from being labeled.

Yep, that works! Thanks!

[Zeta-Flux]

You can also use \begin{equation*} \end{equation*}. This works with split, eqnarray, etc... as well.

[flouran]

Hi,
I was wondering, how do I keep the numbering for theorems, conjectures, and lemmas separate? Typically, when I have a conjecture (say it is the first conjecture, so it will be denoted by Conjecture 1), I use:
\begin{conj}
\end{conj}
Then, say I state a lemma right afterwards, using \begin{lemma} \end{lemma}, LaTeX denotes it as Lemma 2 rather than Lemma 1. And if I have a theorem right afterwards, using \begin{theorem} \end{theorem}, LaTeX denotes it as Theorem 3 rather than Theorem 1. So, how do I circumvent this and have the numbering of theorems, lemmas, and conjectures distinct within their own group?

[Zeta-Flux]

You do that in the header, by defining different theorem types.

That said, I have to say that I have never liked it when papers do that. It is so much easier to find a result if everything is numbered sequentially. What is even worse is when Lemmas and Theorems have their own numbers, AND they depend on the section (or subsection). It gets convoluted.

Just have them go in increasing order.

There are certain exceptions to this rule:
1. If you have a list of questions/ conjectures at the end.
2. If you have a list of axioms in the middle.

I think the following is what you put in the header:

\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}[thm]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{axiom}{Axiom}

This would have Theorem and Lemma numbered together, separate from Axiom.

[flouran]

How do I make it such that my output pdf does not have any page numbers?