Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Do we want MathJax?
Some Codidact communities have MathJax enabled, which allows using mathematical notation in posts. For examples of what this looks like, see the end of the Mathematics Codidact formatting help.
Would this community like MathJax to be enabled? I couldn't find a previous discussion of this on Meta.
3 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
There is a small oddity wherein this post shows up strangely in list pages:
Regex to get text outside brackets
I am trying to capture the content outside square brackets in groups, using this regex: (.*)\[.*?\](.*) And it works perfectly for a simple string like this: testing_[_is_]_done This is the…
If code blocks are not supposed to appear on list pages, is MathJax?
I would support this, but only if it doesn't noticeably distract from implementing other important features. I imagine that MathJax would have a real, but niche use on Software for more theoretical discussion - for example, to show formulas used to compute the big-O running time of an algorithm. It would have no real use for e.g. discussing how to implement things in code or explaining the idiosyncrasies of libraries; but Software is acknowledged to have a broader scope than Some Other sites do.
Based on the activity here and discussion in chat, I've enabled MathJax on this community.
I don't know Mathjax myself, so as verification, I'm copying some Math I found in this Mathematics post:
In the proof of Theorem 2, we are aligning the $x_1$ axis with the vector $\gamma$. That is, $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} = \gamma \cdot \nabla$, the directional derivative in the $\gamma$ direction. Therefore, $\gamma \cdot \operatorname{grad} u = \gamma \cdot \nabla u = \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_1} = u_{x_1}$. One of the first consequences of Theorem 2.1 is that $u_{x_1} < 0$ in $\Sigma=\Sigma_\gamma$. Theorem 2.1 also has $\Omega = \Sigma \cup \Sigma' \cup (T_{\lambda_1}\cap \Omega)$ if $\gamma \cdot \nabla u = 0$ at some point of $\Omega \cap T_{\lambda_1}$ as a conclusion. For the annulus, the $T_{\lambda_1}$ for varying $\gamma$ will be the lines tangent to the circle halfway into the annulus. Clearly the (closure of the) maximal cap unioned with its reflection is not all of the annulus which is what Theorem 2.1 implies in this case, thus it can't be the case that $\gamma\cdot\nabla u = 0$ even when $|x| = (R'+R)/2$ where before we only knew this for $|x| > (R'+R)/2$.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads