Видео

It is via the "cd to" application maintained by Jay Tuley here github.com/jbtule/cdto . From its documentation "To install "cd to ....app" copy to your Applications folder, and then from the applications folder ⌘ drag it into the Finder toolbar or drag from another finder window to toolbar being customized. To use, just click on the new button and instantly opens a new terminal window."

I believe so, but have not investigated. Instead of selecting "git" from the Menu, there is an option to select "GitHub"---give that a try and let us know.

As mentioned in profajroberts.github.io/LaTeX/ltxqstart.html#Titles, usually just precede the special character by a backslash. For example, to get a $ to appear, put \$ into the LaTeX source. The main exception is the backslash itself for which you might use \verb|\|.

@@tonyroberts2588 Excellent that works well - thank you.

A subtle issue: a new-line character generates a blank character in the LaTeX parsing, and sometimes this blank is incorrect. Finishing a line with "% " avoids this blank. For example, typically we end environments with "\end{...} " where " " denotes a new line. Some environments absorb the generated blank OK (such as displayed math environments), but many environments do not. One example is the figure environment where you might at the start of a paragraph have " \begin{figure}...\end{figure} Body text ..." which generates a bad extra space at the start of the line "Body text...". Finishing the environment with "\end{figure}% " avoids the problematic blank.

Some mysterious issue with MathJax and web browsers. Since this web site is not about MathJax, I have not invested the time to try to make more robust.

@@tonyroberts2588 Thanks - it works inside my LaTeX document so I am happy.

I taught this at 4th year university level. The techniques could be taught earlier if needed.

@@tonyroberts2588 I am geology professor and no one in my department with the exception of member who is part engineer and part geologist (hydrologist with two PhD!) uses LaTeX! However, it is widely used by my physics friends. There is not a specific class on LaTeX offered at my university - just some simple and not so good overtures with Overlay thought for an hour at the library. This may be time to build such as class and I would certain appreciate your thoughts on that.

From Alan Munn "it's usually better to use the \include command for this kind of thing, although the import package does have some interesting capabilities"

Yes there are many possible software packages, but to be exhaustive is too exhausting. For example, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_TeX_editors

@@tonyroberts2588 I know - I even dabbled with atom but decided that it was easier to use dedicated software like TeXShop or TeXMaker. Atom is more like a swiss-army knife of programs and simply too complex for me. In terms of TeXShop vs. TeXMaker I prefer the look of TeXShop but TeXMaker seems to have a lot more helpful features such as a look of the overall document structure. However, I could not save my preferred settings for reasons I fail to find.

The view does depend upon your browser settings. Although I keep the html simple, there are many variations among browsers and user seetings.

@@tonyroberts2588 As I progressed through your lectures I see the rationale in your setup and approach. Thanks.

You may disagree, but what does the evidence say? The evidence says that body text wider than about 50 or 60 characters width reduces comprehension by the reader. So if you want your prose understood, your best chance is to so limit the width of body text. I am not a fan of the wide margins, so I recommend to typeset to 6mm margins, and to maximise comprehension by readers typeset onto A5 paper---which is good for smart-Pad/phone reading, and is nice printed 2up. Remember: follow the evidence for readers, not your own personal peccadilloes.

@@tonyroberts2588 Thanks, Tony. I've heard most arguments for 60ish characters per line, as I'm sure you've read most arguments against. 1. People aren't going to learn to comprehend prose of >60 lines if we keep dishing up short lines. 2. I don't like 60 characters as an appropriate amount for all work. Scientific papers are meant to be read more than once. On first reading people will miss a lot of salient details. On subsequent readings they will pay more attention to what is important for them. 3. The 60 character stricture is not universally accepted by good quality journals. For example, your own paper (with J. Bunder) in J. Computational and Applied Mathematics is around 120 characters per line. Incidentally, that's probably the only disagreement I have with you. I try to follow your LaTeX advice and style as much as possible. I'm still unsure about how to set landscape tables, and in particular whether to insert spaces between every 5 digits, or every 3, or something else. 1.234 567 890 or 1.23456 78901? I have (aerodynamic) results that are accurate to >25 digits and are best shown in three columns side by side, e.g. Cl, Cm and Cdi.