3 ms·
Not the OP, but in my experience, when you are doing math, physics or CS and don't use LaTeX, you'll be looked at sideways. There is virtually no alternative wh
by gmueckl 5y ago
Not the OP, but in my experience, when you are doing math, physics or CS and don't use LaTeX, you'll be looked at sideways. There is virtually no alternative when it comes to typesetting advanced maths.
- PartiallyTyped 5y agoI have friends who used MS Word to write their thesis in CS undergrad. Surprisingly it is possible to write math in a LaTeX-like fashion and they show up quite well. I have had more trouble aligning things with Word than with LaTeX so I kinda looked at them sideways.
- gmueckl 5y agoThe math support in MS Office is sufficient for some tasks and it's actually very usable then. But I find it woefully underpowered when it comes to typesetting advanced stuff. I come up against its limit quite regularly (I need to make my slides in Powerpoint for $REASONS). Also, annoyingly, it slows down significantly when there are lots of nested blocks (e.g. subscripts, superscripts, which I need often).
- wizzwizz4 5y agoMathML / very neat handwritten formulae are decent alternatives.
- madars 5y agoYep. "The authors don't use TeX" is also sign #1 on Scott Aaronson's "Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong" https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 > This simple test (suggested by Dave Bacon) already catches at least 60% of wrong mathematical breakthroughs. David Deutsch and Lov Grover are among the only known false positives.
- refactor_master 5y agoWithout precision, recall and a proper problem formulation,”60%” is pretty bad, if not outright meaningless.