GMC Forums Superscript/Subscript formatting?

[TheouAegis]

In the old forum, you could at least use [sup] and [sub] tags for superscript and subscript, but apparently it's not in these forums. It was useful for writing out formulae. Is there an alternative on these forums, or is the feature just not available? If it's not available, is there any way to make it available?

 

[Aura]

Not possible without the usage of an add-on.

 

[Yal]

I don't see why you'd want to use mathematical notation for formulas when there's perfectly working programmer notation that's way more relevant for anyone that'd like to replicate them. You can paste images inline just fine, so if you absolutely need something to look ugly and unreadable, just render it using LaTeX or something and copypaste it with the snipping tool.

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

I don't see why you'd want to use mathematical notation for formulas when there's perfectly working programmer notation that's way more relevant for anyone that'd like to replicate them. You can paste images inline just fine, so if you absolutely need something to look ugly and unreadable, just render it using LaTeX or something and copypaste it with the snipping tool.

If you think standard math notation is "ugly and unreadable," TheouAegis and the people he's worried about sharing equations with are probably a little better at math than you, Yal. I don't think you can say what notation is best for every member here. It's obvious that for Aegis, at least, standard notation is preferable. If we're talking about math, it's preferable for me, too.

And using your logic, we don't need code boxes or quotes, either. We can just screencap and paste images of everything! X'D

 

[Mercerenies]

I have to agree with @RichHopelessComposer on this one. Standard math notation is definitely better, especially if you've had some higher level math classes; your mind sees things in that form naturally, and using programmer notation seems cluttered. If this isn't too hard, I second the OP's request, though I certainly understand if it's not built-in and YYG is hesitant to add new stuff.

 

[Yal]

If you think standard math notation is "ugly and unreadable," TheouAegis and the people he's worried about sharing equations with are probably a little better at math than you, Yal.

Wouldn't deem that impossible, though it stings to admit it. I've always seen maths as a tool rather than as something with a purpose in itself, and it irks me how the people behind it has to invent new nomenclature for ...

Just for information/bragging reasons: the highest level stuff I've been using are Fourier and Laplace transforms and frequency domain stuff in general (especially for analysis of functions), tensor algebra, linear algebra (aka matrix algebra), complex method circuit analysis, and boundary-value problems on systems of ordinary differential equations. The only stuff I've found useful are the linear algebra and a bit of boolean algebra I picked up in an assembly programming course.

Does anyone seriously feel THIS is readable? I literally have to read things like this out loud in order to be able to follow it.

(Source: EL2620 Nonlinear Control Lecture notes; Karl H. Johansson e.al, 2014, one of my course books on nonlinear control)

 

[TheouAegis]

I'm not asking for anything super fancy (although I can make up all those symbols using ALT codes just fine), I just want superscripts and subscripts. Some people may find superscripts less readable, but I think subscripts can at least make things more readable if used right. I mean, look at the facts around here - if you type up formulae in GML, the newbs are going to think you're giving them copy-paste code and then they'll flood the forums with, "This doesn't work, it's giving me errors!" or, "What do I put here?" And I guess in a way a font of size 1 could work in place of subscripts, but changing font sizes is a lot more tedious then just typing [sub][/sub] if you're used to just typing things out in one go.

Then you have the super newbs who don't even know sqr() and sqrt() are functions in GM. Hell, some people don't even know what max(), min(), median(), and mean() do. Granted they probably also wouldn't know that superscript 2 means square, but then again, there's always the possibility someone would know what superscript 2 means but not what sqr() means. So saying
d=sqrt(sqr(x1-x2)+sqr(y1-y2))
would mean a lot less to them than
d=√( (x1-x2)² + (y1-y2)² )

(Yes, I know the ascii codes exist for the superscripts, but those can only take you so far.)

 

[Yal]

So saying
d=sqrt(sqr(x1-x2)+sqr(y1-y2))
would mean a lot less to them than
d=√( (x1-x2)² + (y1-y2)² )

You're aware there's a built-in function that computes the distance between two points, right? (Which has a pretty self-explanatory name for newbies as well, point_distance). Dunno if you explain that particular thing a lot or if it was just a random example using squares and roots, though.

 

[TheouAegis]

Random example. Was also trying to practice the superscript ascii codes, since apparently that's what I'll be stuck using.

 

[Strawbry_jam]

Works for me:
Textsub

I know it's not the same but it works...

 

[Mercerenies]

Wouldn't deem that impossible, though it stings to admit it. I've always seen maths as a tool rather than as something with a purpose in itself, and it irks me how the people behind it has to invent new nomenclature for ...
Does anyone seriously feel THIS is readable? I literally have to read things like this out loud in order to be able to follow it.
View attachment 2421
(Source: EL2620 Nonlinear Control Lecture notes; Karl H. Johansson e.al, 2014, one of my course books on nonlinear control)

I have to say, that doesn't help your argument. No, that's not great to look at, but the alternative is this:

magn(e_1)_2 <= magn(r_1)_2 + gamma(S_2) * (magn(r_2)_2 + gamma(S_1) * magn(e_1)_2)
gives
magn(e_1)_2 <= (magn(r_1)_2 + gamma(S_2) * magn(r_2)_2) / (1 - gamma(S_2) * gamma(S_1))
gamma(S_2) * gamma(S_1) < 1, magn(r_1)_2 < infinity, magn(r_2)_2 < infinity give magn(e_1)_2 < infinity
Similarly,
magn(e_2)_2 <= (magn(r_2)_2 + gamma(S_1) * magn(r_1)_2) / (1 - gamma(S_1) * gamma(S_2))
so also e_2 is bounded

And is that really better?

 

[RichHopefulComposer]

And is that really better?

No.

X'D

 

[Yal]

And is that really better?

To be honest, yes. The only issue I have with that is mixing up plaintext and notation, but it's a lot easier to read the maths stuff.

 

[Mike]

I'm with @Yal, I hate how coding papers insist on using pure maths to show something that's basically loops and conditionals. For me - who isn't great at maths, I can easily follow code whereas I can't even read most maths equations.

Equations are designed to give an answer at any point in the process, plug in the correct values - loop counters, flags etc, and you get an answer. But coding shows you HOW to do it. having loops inside loops and then a simpler equation inside it to me is much simpler than using any maths equation.

Look at the equation for Beziers, and then bezier patches an then bezier hyper-patches. These are simple loops inside loops inside loops. But the equation is a mind bender for me. The only reason I was able to do it, was because someone also posted code to a single bezier line, and I was able to figure the rest out.

So...Maths... BLEH! it's over rated. :lemconf: