Using the template files provided by my school, I'm attempting to build a pdf document. I encounter the following problems:
- If I do not use the lettrine package to drop caps on each chapter's opening paragraph, then my document has no indentation of new paragraphs at all. This is the case even when I try to force the issue by including \indent at the start of a new paragraph.
- If I do use the lettrine package (which is what I want to do) on the chapter's opening paragraph, it works fine for that paragraph. But each subsequent paragraph looks as though I've typed
\lettrine{}{Opening word here}
. I'll attempt to attach a screenshot to better illustrate the behavior.
Code: Select all
\documentclass[]{afit-etd}
\usepackage{xcolor} % standard package for including colors
\usepackage[printonlyused]{acronym} % facilitates the use of acronyms
\usepackage[square,sort&compress,numbers]{natbib} % better citations especially
% when including a string of
% citations
\usepackage{subfig}
% Packages for fonts
\usepackage{amssymb} % math symbols (amsmath & amsthm are defined in afit-etd)
\usepackage{lettrine} % provides dropped characters to lead off a paragraph.
% These are not required, but some people like them at
% the start of each chapter.
\usepackage{bm} % The most comprehensive package for bold math figures
\usepackage{textcomp} % \texttimes, \textdegree, \textohm, \textmu
\usepackage{type1cm}
% Packages for tables
\usepackage{booktabs} % improved rules (lines) for tables
\usepackage{dcolumn} % align at decimal in tables
\usepackage{multirow} % table elements spanning multiple rows
\graphicspath{{images/}} % reduce clutter by storing figures elsewhere
% Defining macros for all references makes it easy to change format later from
% "Equation 1" to "Eqn (1)", for example
\newcommand{\fig}[1]{Figure~\ref{fig:#1}}
\newcommand{\tab}[1]{Table~\ref{tab:#1}}
\newcommand{\eq}[1]{Equation~\eqref{eq:#1}}
\newcommand{\eqtwo}[2]{Equations~\eqref{eq:#1} and \eqref{eq:#2}}
\newcommand{\chap}[1]{Chapter~\ref{chap:#1}}
\newcommand{\sect}[1]{Section~\ref{sec:#1}}
\newcommand{\Ref}[1]{Reference~\citenum{#1}} % \citenum is defined in the
% natbib and provides the
% reference number without brackets
% The abstract can also be saved in a separate file, called abstract.tex for
% example, and included here using: "\abstract{\input{abstract}}"
% Required SF298 macros. See the SF298 package guide for additional fields.
\DatesCovered{Jan 2009--Mar 2014} % First quarter of classes to Graduation
\ContractNumber{} % "in house" if AFIT sponsored or blank otherwise
\ProjectNumber{} % JON number (per advisor) or blank
\SponsoringAgency{\relax} % sponsor address or '\relax' (will appear blank)
\Acronyms{} % sponsor unit/office symbol or blank
\SMReportNumber{} % blank unless sponsoring agency assigned a report number
\AddlSupplementaryNotes{} % Add any other comments as necessary
\ReportClassification {U} % document classification
\AbstractClassification {U} % abstract classification
\PageClassification {U} % SF 298 classification
\AbstractLimitation {UU} % change to 'SAR' if limited distribution
\SubjectTerms{Portfolio Construction, Decision Analysis, Continuous Decisions}
\ResponsiblePerson {Dr. David R. Jacques (ENV)}
\RPTelephone {(937) 255-3355 x3329 David.Jacques@afit.edu}
% advisor's 4 digit extension and email address. If necessary to fit into
% the block, the \footnotesize command can be placed before the phone
% number to reduce the font size
% \renewcommand\AbstractSize\scriptsize % if the abstract is too long to fit on
% the SF298, then the abstract should probably be shortened. However, in a
% pinch, this command can be used to reduce the fontsize for the abstract on
% the SF298.
%%%% Optional macro definitions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{document}
% The following line is required to generate the prefatory pages
\makePrefatoryPages
\include{Triage1}
\include{Triage2}
\include{Triage3}
\include{Triage4}
\include{Triage5}
\references{
\bibliographystyle{thesnumb} % or ieeetr, spie, aiaa, etc.
\bibliography{TriageBib}
}
\end{document}
\lettrine
statement:Code: Select all
\chapter{Background and Related Work}
\label{chap:background}
\lettrine{O}{ur} key focus here is in selecting items to form a portfolio of some type. The vast majority of the literature on this topic proceeds from the assumption that the set of alternatives is known to the decision maker. Duncan summarizes a number of approaches with the assumption that the set of alternatives is known being so fundamental as to never be explicitly acknowledged. \cite{Duncan2009} In identifying gaps, Duncan highlights a number of significant issues that complicate the process of selecting an optimal portfolio, including the multiobjective nature of portfolio decision problems, the presence of uncertainty in candidate project measures, the prospect of interdependence between portfolio elements, and the social difficulty in gaining consensus among multiple decision makers with varied focus and priorities. The possibility that the decision maker(s) may need to evaluate project proposals independently over time is never mentioned.
Henig describes a successful application of decision analysis in the selection of R\&D projects. \cite{Henig1996} The focus however is exclusively on the construction of the objectives hierarchy and the attributes and measures used to evaluate projects. The author explicitly states that the decision maker "has a finite number of projects and a finite number of versions for each project. The feasible set of alternatives is all the possible combinations of all the projects at different investment levels."
Similarly Henriksen focuses on identifying an appropriate set of attributes and constructing a process that can be used to rank projects. \cite{Henriksen1999} The focus here is on developing a selection methodology that maintains analytical rigor without introducing so much complexity as to render the method unworkable outside of academic applications. Ranking though is an activity that is only meaningful if the set is known. Indeed the author states ``The `number' generated as a result of the evaluation process is only useful for comparing and ranking alternatives \emph{within that set},'' (emphasis in original). This statement is made in the context of overcoming the sense of ``researcher animosity'' associated with the perception that the project is being ``graded.'' It is indicative however of again encountering the fundamental assumption that the entire set of alternatives is known.