I think Paul has a problem....He keeps talking to himself!

LOL! I'm trying to learn this newfangled formating language!

Here's an interesting example ...

\(R_{eq} = (\frac{1}{R_1}\ + \frac{1}{R_2}\ + \frac{1}{R_3}\ + \dots + \frac{1}{R_n})^{-1} \)

Man that took a whole lot of re editing! Is it really worth it?

 

Looks like you're doing good, Paul

I'm going to have to take this stuff up one of these days.

Did I mention that I hate math, and that I suck at it?

That's pretty odd for someone who's spent most of their life in advanced electronics and computers - and loved most of it.

 

Hello, SgtWookie. Right off the bat let me tell you your avatar -- if that's what you call your picture -- is worth a thousand bucks. Really really cool. I have always maintained that the Marines have the best dress uniforms of all the services. I was Army and my old army pictures make me look pretty sad. I will say no more.

I hated math when I was young, but I went back to school when I was in my 30s. I had take make up courses in order to get into college. But something funny had happened to me between being 18 and 32 ... I had developed a love of learning and math became my sweetheart. I love math and I love electronics. There's nothing like going back to school when your old enough to really appreciate it!

Here's wishing you the best, Sgt.

 

LOL! I'm trying to learn this newfangled formating language!

Here's an interesting example ...

\(R_{eq} = (\frac{1}{R_1}\ + \frac{1}{R_2}\ + \frac{1}{R_3}\ + \dots + \frac{1}{R_n})^{-1} \)

Man that took a whole lot of re editing! Is it really worth it?

It's a lot like programming, it seems difficult now, but it will become easy and routine after practice. The thing to hang on to is how hard it was for you at the beginning, so when the next guy is trying to learn it you don't tell them how easy it is.

 

It's a lot like programming, it seems difficult now, but it will become easy and routine after practice. The thing to hang on to is how hard it was for you at the beginning, so when the next guy is trying to learn it you don't tell them how easy it is.

LOL. Right Bill. My thought is that there is some cost-benefit curve here. I'm thinking that if I were writing an e-book then I would have to use this type of formatting. On the other hand, posting quick replies in a forum with typographically complicated formulas kind of makes me question the technique. At any rate I have now become self-conscious about the issue. From now on I will use subscripts and superscripts and special characters and even, from time to time, fractions.

My guess is that you are an old hand at scripting like this and it comes as second nature. I'll work on it.

 

Are you kidding? I'm following alone behind you. I do have an interest same as yours, writing for the book on this site. Like I said, the end result is an illustration, not text (which I find funny in a fashion). Up to this time I've been using Paint to some extent.

 

Are you kidding? I'm following alone behind you. I do have an interest same as yours, writing for the book on this site. Like I said, the end result is an illustration, not text (which I find funny in a fashion). Up to this time I've been using Paint to some extent.

You mean you're just learning this, too, Bill? Well, in that case, shall we move on to formatting logic functions as thatoneguy suggested? Here's a simple function:

\(f = \overline{A} + B + \overline{C}\)

That worked well. I think I've got most of what I need to know now. But it would be nice to make tables. There was a link given to a large online how-to book on this. After I find that again I'll continue with a table.

 

So far I've done tables strictly with Paint. If there is another way I'd like to know it.

I don't think there is a way to directly overline (invert?) a letter. Courier typing keeps the characters constant width (unlike most other fonts) so you can use underlining on the character above.