General ⇒ Using \part as if it was a chapter

[Noviomagum]

I am currently trying to set up my PhD-thesis in LaTeX. Each chapter in the thesis consists of a number of published papers that were already written in LaTeX, and that each consist of a number of \sections and \subsections.

I have been thinking how to get this working, and I came up with the idea to use \part as if it were \chapter, and to put each article in a \chapter. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to get it right, because the structure that emerges is like this:

I. Introduction (part)
1. Intro-paper number 1 (chapter)
... 1.1 Bla (section)
2. Intro-paper number 2 (chapter)
II. Techniques (part)
3. Techniques-paper number 1 (chapter)
... 3.1 Bla (section)
4. Techniques-paper number 1 (chapter)

While I would like something like this:

1. Introduction (part)
1.1 Intro-paper number 1 (chapter)
... 1.1.1 Bla (section)
1.2. Intro-paper number 2 (chapter)
II. Techniques (part)
2.1. Techniques-paper number 1 (chapter)
... 2.1.1 Bla (section)
2.2. Techniques-paper number 1 (chapter)

The major differences between what I get and what I want are:

• the paper numbers (chapter) are not "resetted" when a new part is started (the numbering continues)
• the papers (chapter) are not numbered using 'sub'-numbers ('1' instead of '1.2')
• the parts (part) are numbered using Roman numerals

I have also ran into some problems with the packages I use that I cannot get to work using my own made-up document structure, so my guess is that it is not such a good idea to use \part as if it was a chapter.

Who can help me out? Should I use another approach? Is there a way to get it working anyway? Should I be using Microsoft Word?

Any help is appreciated!

[Stefan Kottwitz]

Hi Noviomagum,

welcome to the board!
If you're already using amsmath, those two lines will solve the three small problems:

Code: Select all

\numberwithin{chapter}{part}
\renewcommand*\thepart{\arabic{part}}

Without amsmath you could use the chngcntr package.

Stefan

[Noviomagum]

This is exactly what I needed, thanks!

A new problem emerges now, however, which was already addressed (but not solved) by someone in this post.