Shorten fraction line











up vote
10
down vote

favorite
1












I understand that this request may sound stupid, but my eyes are just bleeding when I see how $frac{x^-}{2}$ is rendered:



enter image description here



I'm wondering if there's a moderately simple way to make it look like this?



enter image description here



(Please do not suggest $frac{x^-}{2^{phantom{-}}}$ or $frac{{}^{phantom{-}}x^-}{2}$.)



UPDATE



Well, OK, I've realized that frac{x}{2}^{-} may work as a temporary solution, but now my eyes are bleeding when looking at the source code.










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    How about frac{x^{mathmakebox[0pt][l]{-}}}{2} with mathtools?
    – marmot
    Nov 30 at 4:28










  • Cool, thanks. What exactly is happening here?
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 4:30










  • (Even though, it would be preferable to ensure that minus does not stay above the following symbols.)
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 4:30






  • 3




    Maybe the result of frac{x^{-}}{2} is not that pretty, but the proposed layout is much worse to my eyes.
    – egreg
    Nov 30 at 11:31










  • Not only your eyes are bleeding when you look at the code $frac{x}{2}^{-}$, it gives undesired output in non-display mathmode, especially if the denominator is not a single character, as in $frac{x}{222}^{-}$. Putting two ~ in front of x does a reasonable job, no matter what the denominator is, as in $displaystyle frac{~~x^{-}}{2}$
    – Máté Wierdl
    yesterday















up vote
10
down vote

favorite
1












I understand that this request may sound stupid, but my eyes are just bleeding when I see how $frac{x^-}{2}$ is rendered:



enter image description here



I'm wondering if there's a moderately simple way to make it look like this?



enter image description here



(Please do not suggest $frac{x^-}{2^{phantom{-}}}$ or $frac{{}^{phantom{-}}x^-}{2}$.)



UPDATE



Well, OK, I've realized that frac{x}{2}^{-} may work as a temporary solution, but now my eyes are bleeding when looking at the source code.










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    How about frac{x^{mathmakebox[0pt][l]{-}}}{2} with mathtools?
    – marmot
    Nov 30 at 4:28










  • Cool, thanks. What exactly is happening here?
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 4:30










  • (Even though, it would be preferable to ensure that minus does not stay above the following symbols.)
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 4:30






  • 3




    Maybe the result of frac{x^{-}}{2} is not that pretty, but the proposed layout is much worse to my eyes.
    – egreg
    Nov 30 at 11:31










  • Not only your eyes are bleeding when you look at the code $frac{x}{2}^{-}$, it gives undesired output in non-display mathmode, especially if the denominator is not a single character, as in $frac{x}{222}^{-}$. Putting two ~ in front of x does a reasonable job, no matter what the denominator is, as in $displaystyle frac{~~x^{-}}{2}$
    – Máté Wierdl
    yesterday













up vote
10
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
10
down vote

favorite
1






1





I understand that this request may sound stupid, but my eyes are just bleeding when I see how $frac{x^-}{2}$ is rendered:



enter image description here



I'm wondering if there's a moderately simple way to make it look like this?



enter image description here



(Please do not suggest $frac{x^-}{2^{phantom{-}}}$ or $frac{{}^{phantom{-}}x^-}{2}$.)



UPDATE



Well, OK, I've realized that frac{x}{2}^{-} may work as a temporary solution, but now my eyes are bleeding when looking at the source code.










share|improve this question















I understand that this request may sound stupid, but my eyes are just bleeding when I see how $frac{x^-}{2}$ is rendered:



enter image description here



I'm wondering if there's a moderately simple way to make it look like this?



enter image description here



(Please do not suggest $frac{x^-}{2^{phantom{-}}}$ or $frac{{}^{phantom{-}}x^-}{2}$.)



UPDATE



Well, OK, I've realized that frac{x}{2}^{-} may work as a temporary solution, but now my eyes are bleeding when looking at the source code.







fractions






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 30 at 18:05

























asked Nov 30 at 4:25









mavzolej

1585




1585








  • 1




    How about frac{x^{mathmakebox[0pt][l]{-}}}{2} with mathtools?
    – marmot
    Nov 30 at 4:28










  • Cool, thanks. What exactly is happening here?
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 4:30










  • (Even though, it would be preferable to ensure that minus does not stay above the following symbols.)
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 4:30






  • 3




    Maybe the result of frac{x^{-}}{2} is not that pretty, but the proposed layout is much worse to my eyes.
    – egreg
    Nov 30 at 11:31










  • Not only your eyes are bleeding when you look at the code $frac{x}{2}^{-}$, it gives undesired output in non-display mathmode, especially if the denominator is not a single character, as in $frac{x}{222}^{-}$. Putting two ~ in front of x does a reasonable job, no matter what the denominator is, as in $displaystyle frac{~~x^{-}}{2}$
    – Máté Wierdl
    yesterday














  • 1




    How about frac{x^{mathmakebox[0pt][l]{-}}}{2} with mathtools?
    – marmot
    Nov 30 at 4:28










  • Cool, thanks. What exactly is happening here?
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 4:30










  • (Even though, it would be preferable to ensure that minus does not stay above the following symbols.)
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 4:30






  • 3




    Maybe the result of frac{x^{-}}{2} is not that pretty, but the proposed layout is much worse to my eyes.
    – egreg
    Nov 30 at 11:31










  • Not only your eyes are bleeding when you look at the code $frac{x}{2}^{-}$, it gives undesired output in non-display mathmode, especially if the denominator is not a single character, as in $frac{x}{222}^{-}$. Putting two ~ in front of x does a reasonable job, no matter what the denominator is, as in $displaystyle frac{~~x^{-}}{2}$
    – Máté Wierdl
    yesterday








1




1




How about frac{x^{mathmakebox[0pt][l]{-}}}{2} with mathtools?
– marmot
Nov 30 at 4:28




How about frac{x^{mathmakebox[0pt][l]{-}}}{2} with mathtools?
– marmot
Nov 30 at 4:28












Cool, thanks. What exactly is happening here?
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30




Cool, thanks. What exactly is happening here?
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30












(Even though, it would be preferable to ensure that minus does not stay above the following symbols.)
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30




(Even though, it would be preferable to ensure that minus does not stay above the following symbols.)
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:30




3




3




Maybe the result of frac{x^{-}}{2} is not that pretty, but the proposed layout is much worse to my eyes.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 11:31




Maybe the result of frac{x^{-}}{2} is not that pretty, but the proposed layout is much worse to my eyes.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 11:31












Not only your eyes are bleeding when you look at the code $frac{x}{2}^{-}$, it gives undesired output in non-display mathmode, especially if the denominator is not a single character, as in $frac{x}{222}^{-}$. Putting two ~ in front of x does a reasonable job, no matter what the denominator is, as in $displaystyle frac{~~x^{-}}{2}$
– Máté Wierdl
yesterday




Not only your eyes are bleeding when you look at the code $frac{x}{2}^{-}$, it gives undesired output in non-display mathmode, especially if the denominator is not a single character, as in $frac{x}{222}^{-}$. Putting two ~ in front of x does a reasonable job, no matter what the denominator is, as in $displaystyle frac{~~x^{-}}{2}$
– Máté Wierdl
yesterday










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










My eyes bleed with your proposal. Anyway



documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}

makeatletter
newcommand{fracto}[3]{%
{mathpalettefrac@to{{#1}{#2}{#3}}}%
}
newcommand{frac@to}[2]{frac@@to#1#2}
newcommand{frac@@to}[4]{%
% #1 = mathstyle
% #2 = full numerator
% #3 = denominator
% #4 = reduced numerator
begingroup
sboxz@{$m@th#1frac{#2}{#3}$}%
sboxtw@{$m@th#1frac{#4}{#3}$}%
settowidthdimen@{$m@thfrac@to@demote#1#4$}%
frac{{}makebox[dimen@][l]{$frac@to@demote#1#2$}}{#3}%
kern-wdtw@
kernwdz@
endgroup
}
newcommandfrac@to@demote[1]{%
ifx#1displaystyletextstyleelse
ifx#1textstylescriptstyleelse
scriptscriptstylefifi
}
makeatother

begin{document}

begin{gather*}
X + frac{x^{-}}{2} + frac{x^{-}}{100} + X \
X + fracto{x^{-}}{2}{x} + fracto{x^{-}}{100}{x} + X \
end{gather*}

end{document}


enter image description here



First I typeset the standard fraction, then the same but with the “reduced numerator” in two boxes, so I can use their widths. I also measure the reduced numerator.



Then I typeset the fraction with the numerator having the same width as the reduced one (aligned left). This fraction is as wide as box 2, so I back up by this amount and reinstate the width of the standard fraction, which is the width of box 0.






share|improve this answer























  • Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 18:03










  • @mavzolej Added short explanation.
    – egreg
    Nov 30 at 18:16


















up vote
12
down vote













I'll be happy to remove this but you could do



documentclass{article}
usepackage{mathtools}
begin{document}
[frac{x^{mathrlap{-}}}{2}hphantom{scriptstyle -}x]
end{document}


enter image description here






share|improve this answer





















  • Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 4:37











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: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
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%2f462509%2fshorten-fraction-line%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote



accepted










My eyes bleed with your proposal. Anyway



documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}

makeatletter
newcommand{fracto}[3]{%
{mathpalettefrac@to{{#1}{#2}{#3}}}%
}
newcommand{frac@to}[2]{frac@@to#1#2}
newcommand{frac@@to}[4]{%
% #1 = mathstyle
% #2 = full numerator
% #3 = denominator
% #4 = reduced numerator
begingroup
sboxz@{$m@th#1frac{#2}{#3}$}%
sboxtw@{$m@th#1frac{#4}{#3}$}%
settowidthdimen@{$m@thfrac@to@demote#1#4$}%
frac{{}makebox[dimen@][l]{$frac@to@demote#1#2$}}{#3}%
kern-wdtw@
kernwdz@
endgroup
}
newcommandfrac@to@demote[1]{%
ifx#1displaystyletextstyleelse
ifx#1textstylescriptstyleelse
scriptscriptstylefifi
}
makeatother

begin{document}

begin{gather*}
X + frac{x^{-}}{2} + frac{x^{-}}{100} + X \
X + fracto{x^{-}}{2}{x} + fracto{x^{-}}{100}{x} + X \
end{gather*}

end{document}


enter image description here



First I typeset the standard fraction, then the same but with the “reduced numerator” in two boxes, so I can use their widths. I also measure the reduced numerator.



Then I typeset the fraction with the numerator having the same width as the reduced one (aligned left). This fraction is as wide as box 2, so I back up by this amount and reinstate the width of the standard fraction, which is the width of box 0.






share|improve this answer























  • Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 18:03










  • @mavzolej Added short explanation.
    – egreg
    Nov 30 at 18:16















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










My eyes bleed with your proposal. Anyway



documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}

makeatletter
newcommand{fracto}[3]{%
{mathpalettefrac@to{{#1}{#2}{#3}}}%
}
newcommand{frac@to}[2]{frac@@to#1#2}
newcommand{frac@@to}[4]{%
% #1 = mathstyle
% #2 = full numerator
% #3 = denominator
% #4 = reduced numerator
begingroup
sboxz@{$m@th#1frac{#2}{#3}$}%
sboxtw@{$m@th#1frac{#4}{#3}$}%
settowidthdimen@{$m@thfrac@to@demote#1#4$}%
frac{{}makebox[dimen@][l]{$frac@to@demote#1#2$}}{#3}%
kern-wdtw@
kernwdz@
endgroup
}
newcommandfrac@to@demote[1]{%
ifx#1displaystyletextstyleelse
ifx#1textstylescriptstyleelse
scriptscriptstylefifi
}
makeatother

begin{document}

begin{gather*}
X + frac{x^{-}}{2} + frac{x^{-}}{100} + X \
X + fracto{x^{-}}{2}{x} + fracto{x^{-}}{100}{x} + X \
end{gather*}

end{document}


enter image description here



First I typeset the standard fraction, then the same but with the “reduced numerator” in two boxes, so I can use their widths. I also measure the reduced numerator.



Then I typeset the fraction with the numerator having the same width as the reduced one (aligned left). This fraction is as wide as box 2, so I back up by this amount and reinstate the width of the standard fraction, which is the width of box 0.






share|improve this answer























  • Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 18:03










  • @mavzolej Added short explanation.
    – egreg
    Nov 30 at 18:16













up vote
4
down vote



accepted







up vote
4
down vote



accepted






My eyes bleed with your proposal. Anyway



documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}

makeatletter
newcommand{fracto}[3]{%
{mathpalettefrac@to{{#1}{#2}{#3}}}%
}
newcommand{frac@to}[2]{frac@@to#1#2}
newcommand{frac@@to}[4]{%
% #1 = mathstyle
% #2 = full numerator
% #3 = denominator
% #4 = reduced numerator
begingroup
sboxz@{$m@th#1frac{#2}{#3}$}%
sboxtw@{$m@th#1frac{#4}{#3}$}%
settowidthdimen@{$m@thfrac@to@demote#1#4$}%
frac{{}makebox[dimen@][l]{$frac@to@demote#1#2$}}{#3}%
kern-wdtw@
kernwdz@
endgroup
}
newcommandfrac@to@demote[1]{%
ifx#1displaystyletextstyleelse
ifx#1textstylescriptstyleelse
scriptscriptstylefifi
}
makeatother

begin{document}

begin{gather*}
X + frac{x^{-}}{2} + frac{x^{-}}{100} + X \
X + fracto{x^{-}}{2}{x} + fracto{x^{-}}{100}{x} + X \
end{gather*}

end{document}


enter image description here



First I typeset the standard fraction, then the same but with the “reduced numerator” in two boxes, so I can use their widths. I also measure the reduced numerator.



Then I typeset the fraction with the numerator having the same width as the reduced one (aligned left). This fraction is as wide as box 2, so I back up by this amount and reinstate the width of the standard fraction, which is the width of box 0.






share|improve this answer














My eyes bleed with your proposal. Anyway



documentclass{article}
usepackage{amsmath}

makeatletter
newcommand{fracto}[3]{%
{mathpalettefrac@to{{#1}{#2}{#3}}}%
}
newcommand{frac@to}[2]{frac@@to#1#2}
newcommand{frac@@to}[4]{%
% #1 = mathstyle
% #2 = full numerator
% #3 = denominator
% #4 = reduced numerator
begingroup
sboxz@{$m@th#1frac{#2}{#3}$}%
sboxtw@{$m@th#1frac{#4}{#3}$}%
settowidthdimen@{$m@thfrac@to@demote#1#4$}%
frac{{}makebox[dimen@][l]{$frac@to@demote#1#2$}}{#3}%
kern-wdtw@
kernwdz@
endgroup
}
newcommandfrac@to@demote[1]{%
ifx#1displaystyletextstyleelse
ifx#1textstylescriptstyleelse
scriptscriptstylefifi
}
makeatother

begin{document}

begin{gather*}
X + frac{x^{-}}{2} + frac{x^{-}}{100} + X \
X + fracto{x^{-}}{2}{x} + fracto{x^{-}}{100}{x} + X \
end{gather*}

end{document}


enter image description here



First I typeset the standard fraction, then the same but with the “reduced numerator” in two boxes, so I can use their widths. I also measure the reduced numerator.



Then I typeset the fraction with the numerator having the same width as the reduced one (aligned left). This fraction is as wide as box 2, so I back up by this amount and reinstate the width of the standard fraction, which is the width of box 0.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 30 at 18:15

























answered Nov 30 at 11:58









egreg

702k8618733147




702k8618733147












  • Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 18:03










  • @mavzolej Added short explanation.
    – egreg
    Nov 30 at 18:16


















  • Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 18:03










  • @mavzolej Added short explanation.
    – egreg
    Nov 30 at 18:16
















Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 18:03




Oh God, I will not even ask how this works.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 18:03












@mavzolej Added short explanation.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 18:16




@mavzolej Added short explanation.
– egreg
Nov 30 at 18:16










up vote
12
down vote













I'll be happy to remove this but you could do



documentclass{article}
usepackage{mathtools}
begin{document}
[frac{x^{mathrlap{-}}}{2}hphantom{scriptstyle -}x]
end{document}


enter image description here






share|improve this answer





















  • Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 4:37















up vote
12
down vote













I'll be happy to remove this but you could do



documentclass{article}
usepackage{mathtools}
begin{document}
[frac{x^{mathrlap{-}}}{2}hphantom{scriptstyle -}x]
end{document}


enter image description here






share|improve this answer





















  • Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 4:37













up vote
12
down vote










up vote
12
down vote









I'll be happy to remove this but you could do



documentclass{article}
usepackage{mathtools}
begin{document}
[frac{x^{mathrlap{-}}}{2}hphantom{scriptstyle -}x]
end{document}


enter image description here






share|improve this answer












I'll be happy to remove this but you could do



documentclass{article}
usepackage{mathtools}
begin{document}
[frac{x^{mathrlap{-}}}{2}hphantom{scriptstyle -}x]
end{document}


enter image description here







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Nov 30 at 4:32









marmot

81k491173




81k491173












  • Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 4:37


















  • Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
    – mavzolej
    Nov 30 at 4:37
















Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:37




Not bad! This is smth that can be easily generalised for more complicated cases.
– mavzolej
Nov 30 at 4:37


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f462509%2fshorten-fraction-line%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

數位音樂下載

When can things happen in Etherscan, such as the picture below?

格利澤436b