[math-fun] Is \sech necessary?
Apparently not---I just discovered that in LaTeX, there's no hyperbolic secant symbol built in. \sin, \cos, \tan, \sec, \csc, \cot, \arcsin, \arccos, \arctan, \sinh, \cosh, \tanh, \coth But no \sech? Thane Plambeck 650 321 4884 office 650 323 4928 fax http://www.qxmail.com/ehome.htm
Quoting Thane Plambeck <thane@best.com>:
Apparently not---I just discovered that in LaTeX, there's no hyperbolic secant symbol built in.
\sin, \cos, \tan, \sec, \csc, \cot, \arcsin, \arccos, \arctan, \sinh, \cosh, \tanh, \coth
But no \sech?
Nor elliptic functions, and so on. No doubt they had to truncate the list somewhere; since the reason for these specialties is to keep a roman font in an otherwise italicized context, you can make \rm an explicit require- ment. I've had to do this now and then. - hvm ------------------------------------------------- Obtén tu correo en www.correo.unam.mx UNAMonos Comunicándonos
But no \sech?
One can produce it using amsmath, \usepackage{amsmath} \DeclareMathOperator{\sech}{sech} Alec Mihailovs http://webpages.shepherd.edu/amihailo/
participants (3)
-
Alec Mihailovs -
mcintosh@servidor.unam.mx -
Thane Plambeck