Document Classes ⇒ Subequations Question

[renno]

Dear all,

I am using the "report" style. The equations are number "Chapter.Equation", and are reset at the beginning of every chapter. For example "(1.1), (1.2), etc...", then "(2.1), (2.2), etc...". This is perfectly fine.

I want to use sub-equations. The numbers associated with the sub-equations now appear as "(3.3)a, (3.3)b, etc...". What should I do to get the sub-equations numbers to appear as "(3.3a), (3.3b), etc...".

Thank you very much...

[localghost]

Subequations appearing like (1.1a), (1.1b), … should be the normal behaviour in the report class. So you better create a minimum working example (MWE) that shows the unusual appearance of your subequations. Something in your source may redefines this.

[renno]

Thank you very much for the prompt reply...

Please find the MWE attached...

Thanks,

[localghost]

The cause of this unusual appearance was easy to detect. Get the redefinition of equation tags out of your code an everything will work fine.

Code: Select all

% ====================================================================
% ====================================================================
\makeatletter
\def\tagform@#1{\maketag@@@{\ignorespaces#1\unskip\@@italiccorr}}
\let\orgtheequation\theequation

% The parentheses are included below
\def\theequation{(\orgtheequation)}

\makeatother

Without this piece of code the subequations will be tagged with default settings.

[renno]

Thanks for your help,

However, I still need this redefinition of the equation tag. The reason is to get the "\autoref" function to reference equations with the equation number between paranthesis.

With the removal of this code, the equations are number as "(1.1a)" and "(1.1b)", but they are referenced as "Equation 1.1a" (using \Autoref) and Eq. 1.1b (using \autoref)...

How can we accomplish both goals?

Thanks again...

[balfonsi]

Take a look at the mh bundle (package mathtools): it includes tools for controling the appearance of tags. Btw the author doesn't seem to appreciate those bloody macros with three @!

Regards,
B.A.

[renno]

Thanks for the suggestion,

I tried using the mathtools package but still things did not work. I am wondering if we need to redefine the equation and subequation tags all over...

Thanks,