Math & Science ⇒ \left. \middle/ \right doesn't match height "/" with \rule

[JustA_LaTeXusr]

I'm trying to use \rule together with \left, \middle, and \right to force the division symbol "/" to be bigger. It has some limited effect, but size of the symbol doesn't seem all that responsive to the size of the \rule. Is the height of the symbol suppose to be greater than everything between the \left. and \right. ?

P.S. I know I can use \big and its variants, but I'm curious about cause of the problem that I'm experiencing with \left. and \right.

P.P.S. This is crossposted to http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/ ... -with-rule

Here is my MWE.

Code: Select all

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{txfonts}
\begin{document}

%   Vain attempt to use \rule to boost size of "/"
\[
    A
    = \left.
            \overline{ t_\textrm{Up} }
        ~ \middle/ ~ \rule[-0.1em]{0pt}{1.2em}
            \overline{ t_\textrm{Cycle} }
        \right.
\]

%   Test code showing that \rule has some effect, but limited
\[
    A
    = \left. \rule[0.5em]{1pt}{1.4em}
            \overline{ t_\textrm{Up} }
        ~ \middle/ ~
            \overline{ t_\textrm{Cycle} }
        \right.
\]
\[
    A
    = \left.
    \overline{ t_\textrm{Up} }
    ~ \middle/ ~ \rule[-0.1em]{1pt}{1.2em}
    \overline{ t_\textrm{Cycle} }
    \right.
\]
\[
    A
    = \left.
        \overline{ t_\textrm{Up} }
    ~ \middle/ ~ \rule[-2.0em]{1pt}{5.0em}
        \overline{ t_\textrm{Cycle} }
    \right.
\]

\end{document}

[localghost]

[…] This is crossposted to http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/ ... -with-rule […]

And because it has been answered there already, other users have marked it as duplicate. Nevertheless, please abstain from multi-posts in the future.

[JustA_LaTeXusr]

Yes, trying to go to my post results in redirection to a previous thread by someone else. However, I don't think that thread addresses the question of why the results of my MWE don't work, which is what I was seeking to understand. As I said in my post, I already knew of a solution, so insight into the cause the the problem was more the motivation for my post. That doesn't seem to be covered in the thread that is the target of the redirection.

I google multi-posts and it appears to mean the same thing as the more commonly referred to cross-posting. I don't entirely agree with the blanket rule against cross-posting, but that discussion could be very long. I do not want to engage in that in this thread, but I did look up the posting rules. There are no rules against cross-posting as long as a link is provided. Since I provide links, as per direction given in this forum, could you please explain why you're exhorting me to abstain?

Thanks.

[localghost]

[…] As I said in my post, I already knew of a solution, so insight into the cause the the problem was more the motivation for my post. […]

The comment to your question at {TeX} SX gives you the explanation. The redirection is inactive if you log in there.

[…] That doesn't seem to be covered in the thread that is the target of the redirection. […]

I disagree. The solution of the question that is target of the redirection exactly covers the problem. It can be easily applied to your situation.

[…] I don't entirely agree with the blanket rule against cross-posting, but that discussion could be very long. […]

Then don't try to start one.

[…] I do not want to engage in that in this thread, but I did look up the posting rules. There are no rules against cross-posting as long as a link is provided. Since I provide links, as per direction given in this forum, could you please explain why you're exhorting me to abstain? […]

Crosspostings are simply contra-productive. I too often faced the situation that I worked out a solution to a problem just to note afterwards that the same problem has been solved where else. AS many others here I spent my spare in answering questions. How would you feel in such a situation where you have to recognize that you have wasted your time? Perhaps you want to read what our administrator thinks about that.

My attitude towards crosspostings is much more restrictive. I personally don't tolerate them at all.

[JustA_LaTeXusr]

[…] As I said in my post, I already knew of a solution, so insight into the cause the the problem was more the motivation for my post. […]

The comment to your question at {TeX} SX gives you the explanation. The redirection is inactive if you log in there.

Thank you for that. I was having trouble logging in, wondering if I was banned without being informed. I've added clarification as to why the post is not a duplicate.

[…] That doesn't seem to be covered in the thread that is the target of the redirection. […]

I disagree. The solution of the question that is target of the redirection exactly covers the problem. It can be easily applied to your situation.

I don't want to sound repetitive, but this point needs to be re-iterated [iterated again, that is! ]. I did not post to seek a solution as I already had one. I was posting for an explanation of the unwanted behaviour.

[…] I don't entirely agree with the blanket rule against cross-posting, but that discussion could be very long. […]

Then don't try to start one.

Localghost, I believe I did refrain from doing so. Nothing in my post presents a justification for or against cross-posting, blanket or otherwise. My intent was to simply refer to the forum rules. The only reason I even briefly hinted that I did not agree with a blanket ban (without any mentioning the factors that lead me to think that) was to convey the fact that I wasn't using the rules merely to kick up a fuss. I wanted to avoid a tit-for-tat on good/bad of cross-posting (which *would* be unproductive).

[…] I do not want to engage in that in this thread, but I did look up the posting rules. There are no rules against cross-posting as long as a link is provided. Since I provide links, as per direction given in this forum, could you please explain why you're exhorting me to abstain? […]

Crosspostings are simply contra-productive. I too often faced the situation that I worked out a solution to a problem just to note afterwards that the same problem has been solved where else. AS many others here I spent my spare in answering questions. How would you feel in such a situation where you have to recognize that you have wasted your time?

According to the posting rules, that's why the links are required, to avoid wasting the time of contributors. Please don't represent this as disrespect for the time of contributors. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Perhaps you want to read what our administrator thinks about that.

My attitude towards crosspostings is much more restrictive. I personally don't tolerate them at all.

The posting, if read in its entiretly, seems to support what I'm doing. I promised that I wouldn't get dragged into a tit-for-tat on this, so I am deliberately abstaining on summarizing the specific points of support and leave it for readers to read your link on their own.

I appreciate that you're volunteering as a moderator, but please keep in mind that this is not a "personal" forum. It has established rules, which currently spells out how cross-posting is done positively (and I add that word because I would be the first to admit that it can be, and has been, abused). I would ask that you please respect these rules.

[Stefan Kottwitz]

Hello,

in my opinion, cross-posts with a link are ok. They would become better, if a finally found solution on one site would be posted to the other site. Cross-posts without a link are really bad, which is not the case here.

As there's a link, nobody should accidentally waste time because there was a solution at the other site.

Talking here, in the forum, is a different way of communication, compared to that Q&A site. So, why not to go over here and talk about the problem - especially since the question there has been closed.

Cross-posts with links can be bridges between sites. Some may be the reason, how we found out about other sites, a long time ago, which we now visit too.

I think we should split this topic into two parts then, a technical part and the cross-post discussion, and move to the appropriate subforum.

Stefan

[JustA_LaTeXusr]

Thanks for clarifying what is acceptable from an administrator perspective.

About the question being closed, yes, even the clarification about the question (which makes it not a duplicate) hasn't re-opened it. Unfortunately, that means no-one will see the answer to the actual question, so here it is: Qrrbrbirlbel wrote

The / delimiter does have a limited size (at least in that font). Replace it with ( or | and you can observe that \middle works as expected.

I'll look for a separate new thread on cross-posting. If I don't see one, I might start one myself (in the most appropriate subgroup I can find). Thanks.

[localghost]

[…] I would ask that you please respect these rules.

I can't see where I violated these rules. Finally they are based mainly on my ideas. And although this is not a "personal" forum, I think I'm allowed to express my personal opinion independent of my status as moderator. And this opinion can be read in my second response. This is my final contribution here and I won't participate in any further discussion.

[JustA_LaTeXusr]

I might have misunderstood, but your post said that you did not tolerate crosspostings. Often, this means exercising greater authority/power against the object of one's intolerance. Yes, it can mean simply expressing one's disagreement, but moderators typically have powers on a forum that regular participants do not. You are clearly identified as a moderator in your posting. If you meant to simply express disagreement, I think it could have been made much clearer.