3

Does Math like $f (x) = e^{- x}$ work on askbot?

let's try:

$\mathcal{M}[f] (s) = \int_0^{\infty} x^{s - 1} f (x) dx .$

$\mathcal{M} \left[ \frac{d}{d x} f (x) \right] = - (s - 1) F (s - 1),\quad \mathcal{M} \left[ x^{\mu} f (x) \right] = F (s + \mu) .$

$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1} C_kx^k\equiv \frac{1-(1-4x)^{(p+1)/2}}{2x}-x^{p-1}\quad\bmod (p,x^p).$

Give it a try - post some "answers" and see how it works for you.

edit: here are instructions to enable MathJax.

There is a caveat - if you right-click and choose some setting - django may sign you out. It's due to the bug in python Cookie module or MathJax cookie name. MathJax wants to set up cookie named mjx:menu, but python does not like : in the name. I have found the place in MathJax where that character can be replaced with say -, but rebuilding MathJax is not trivial - not all build scripts are present in the repository.

If the site "kicks you out" this way - delete cookie for askbot.org named as above and re-signin.

This issue in MathJax will hopefully be solved very soon.

Evgeny's avatar
13.2k
Evgeny
updated 2010-08-30 15:38:00 -0500
todofixthis's avatar
1.3k
todofixthis
updated 2012-09-01 16:06:07 -0500
edit flag offensive 0 remove flag close merge delete

Comments

1
$\sqrt{2}$
Evgeny's avatar Evgeny (2010-08-29 02:25:51 -0500) edit
mathjax now works in wmd preview, somewhat slow with large equations though.
Evgeny's avatar Evgeny (2010-08-30 22:10:14 -0500) edit

I dont see any formulas but only pure LaTex script, or is math not enabled on this installation?

Tuta's avatar Tuta (2011-12-15 18:00:36 -0500) edit
1

Tuta, we will fix this tomorrow, some things got out of hand when we migrated some software. Mathjax should work fine. It works on http://ask.sagemath.org running a bit older version of askbot.

Evgeny's avatar Evgeny (2011-12-15 18:04:12 -0500) edit
add a comment see more comments

5 Answers

1

This is a test. Consider a curve $E$ defined by $y^2 = x^3 + ax + b$. Also consider the Fermat curve $x^n + y^n = z^n$.

William Stein's avatar
31
William Stein
answered 2010-08-29 10:14:52 -0500
edit flag offensive 0 remove flag delete link

Comments

add a comment see more comments
1

(Just testing -- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

${{G}_{-}}\cong {{N}_{-}}\times (U(n-1)\times {{\mathbb{R}}^{+}})$. Note the analogy with the Euclidean similarity group $\text{Sim}({{\mathbb{R}}^{2n+1}})={{\mathbb{R}}^{2n+1}}\times (\mathrm{O}(2n+1)\times {{\mathbb{R}}^{+}})$.

BobM's avatar
11
BobM
updated 2010-08-30 16:44:57 -0500, answered 2010-08-30 16:43:09 -0500
edit flag offensive 0 remove flag delete link

Comments

Bob, I've disabled the normal behavior of underscores, so math is rendered is more faithfully, but for the real fix the markdown parser will need to be updated. I'm now looking at how this can be done.
Evgeny's avatar Evgeny (2010-08-30 16:47:53 -0500) edit
add a comment see more comments
1

I created a patch for the markdown2.py module that does a better job of isolating MathJax equations from the Markdown processing. Basically, it just replaces all instances of $...$ and $$...$$ patterns from the text, performs the standard markdown processing, and inserts them back in. It works surprisingly well. You can download the context diff from this link (this is just a text file).

The only downside that I can see is that you need to backslash all regular dollar signs that you use in text---but if you run a math-heavy web site like I do, that's no big deal.

Anyway, the Javascript module needs a similar update so that the functionality matches. I've worked on that already, and once I'm satisfied I'll share it here, too. EDIT: OK, I'm satisfied with that patch; you can grab it from this link.

mcg's avatar
86
mcg
answered 2012-09-01 11:58:27 -0500, updated 2012-09-01 16:02:27 -0500
edit flag offensive 0 remove flag delete link

Comments

$i=\sqrt-1$

Jtrain's avatar Jtrain (2012-09-11 21:28:29 -0500) edit
add a comment see more comments
0

How to get all mathematical symbols on this editor without latex code

satish's avatar
1
satish
answered 2017-03-16 04:00:21 -0500
edit flag offensive 0 remove flag delete link

Comments

add a comment see more comments
0

Just testing ${\log _a}n = \frac{{{{\log }_b}n}}{{{{\log }_b}a}}$. And one more time $${\log _a}n = \frac{{{{\log }_b}n}}{{{{\log }_b}a}}$$

afwings's avatar
1
afwings
answered 2012-10-02 13:12:40 -0500
edit flag offensive 0 remove flag delete link

Comments

add a comment see more comments