3 ms·
Can I haz `|\psi> --> \left\vert \psi \right\rangle` ? Or even better |ψ> using `{ v:k for k,v in unicodeit.net }` -- though I don't know of a convenient wa
by ivan_ah 12y ago
Can I haz `|\psi> --> \left\vert \psi \right\rangle` ?
Or even better |ψ> using `{ v:k for k,v in unicodeit.net }` -- though I don't know of a convenient way to input Unicode characters (alpha, beta, ...) so maybe that's not too useful.
Attempt:
re_ket = re.compile(r"""
\|(
[^\|<>]+
)>
""", re.VERBOSE)
What could that possibly interfere with? `R_+ = { x \in R | x>0 }` ?
- s9w 12y ago|\psi> should probably be written with the braket package and "\ket{\psi}" in theory, right?! Sure I thought about implementing the bras and kets besides the full braket. I'll have to run some checks to make sure it won't interfere. Would you prefer the "native" latex version besides a braket-package version? Maybe I should make the choice an option I'm not entirely sure what you mean with the unicode thing. You mean Unicode psi input, latex \psi output? I've started doing those in an earlier version before I realized that there is probably no practical situation where you have unicode input. Any use case that I haven't thought of?
- dfan 12y agoYes please. Whenever I try typesetting anything with bras and kets (or inner products), I can't stop muttering "langle rangle langle rangle" for a day afterwards.
- s9w 12y agoI've implemented kets, bras and all their friends. That explosive set case is tested and cared for, too. Still a bit confused about those unicode inputs though
- ivan_ah 12y agoThe unicode inputs was just a bad idea. Like you said, there is no convenient way to input unicode characters.