# Angstroms in LaTeX

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
• Mar 13th 2006, 04:59 AM
CaptainBlack
Angstroms in LaTeX
Some time ago someone asked how to obtain the symbol for Angstrom units
using LaTeX. Well its not elegant but:

$\displaystyle {\buildrel _{\circ} \over {\mathrm{A}}}$

is generated by: {\buildrel _{\circ} \over {\mathrm{A}}}

I suspect some of the braces are redundant.

RonL
• Mar 13th 2006, 10:04 AM
ThePerfectHacker
Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainBlack
Some time ago someone asked how to obtain the symbol for Angstrom units
using LaTeX. Well its not elegant but:

$\displaystyle {\buildrel _{\circ} \over {\mathrm{A}}}$

is generated by: {\buildrel _{\circ} \over {\mathrm{A}}}

I suspect some of the braces are redundant.

RonL

\buildrel _\circ \over {\mathrm{A}}
Works too.

Problem is this is math forum nobody uses angstroms.
• Mar 13th 2006, 10:23 AM
TD!
There is a simple command to produce a circle above a letter, but it doesn't look to good above a capital A. Click to see the code:

$\displaystyle \r{A}\r{o}$

This is another one, math-style, and seems to work well for A too:

$\displaystyle \mathring{A}\mathring{o}$
• Mar 13th 2006, 10:25 AM
ThePerfectHacker
Quote:

Originally Posted by TD!
There is a simple command to produce a circle above a letter, but it doesn't look to good above a capital A. Click to see the code:

$\displaystyle \r{A}\r{o}$

This is another one, math-style, and seems to work well for A too:

$\displaystyle \mathring{A}\mathring{o}$

It is "proper" to unslant your A.
• Mar 13th 2006, 10:26 AM
CaptainBlack
Quote:

Originally Posted by TD!
There is a simple command to produce a circle above a letter, but it doesn't look to good above a capital A. Click to see the code:

$\displaystyle \r{A}\r{o}$

This is another one, math-style, and seems to work well for A too:

$\displaystyle \mathring{A}\mathring{o}$

$\displaystyle \r{\rm A} \r{\rm o}$
• Mar 13th 2006, 10:28 AM
TD!
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
It is "proper" to unslant your A.

Then use the addition above, still a lot shorter :)
• Mar 13th 2006, 10:38 AM
CaptainBlack
Quote:

Originally Posted by TD!
Then use the addition above, still a lot shorter :)

I resent reference to my dimunitive stature :p

RonL
• Mar 13th 2006, 10:40 AM
TD!
Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainBlack
I resent reference to my dimunitive stature :p

RonL

I'm sorry :D
• Jan 30th 2009, 06:38 AM
Isa
easier: just use \AA

you don't need mathmode or anything

(Wink) Isa
• Jan 30th 2009, 12:44 PM
mr fantastic
Quote:

Originally Posted by Isa
easier: just use \AA

you don't need mathmode or anything

(Wink) Isa

$\displaystyle \AA$
• Jan 30th 2009, 09:35 PM
Constatine11
Quote:

Originally Posted by mr fantastic
$\displaystyle \AA$

$\displaystyle \text{\AA}$

$$\text{\AA}$$

.
• Feb 1st 2009, 03:58 PM
Isa
hm seems it only does work without mathsurrounding in german version as i use miktex/latex or maybe i installed a package that supports this command
• Feb 1st 2009, 08:35 PM
Constatine11
Quote:

Originally Posted by Isa
hm seems it only does work without mathsurrounding in german version as i use miktex/latex or maybe i installed a package that supports this command

The  tags are only required on this site. In a LateX document it requires no such tags (and the \text{} should not be needed other that in math mode).

.
• Jun 24th 2014, 03:55 AM
excidius
Re: Angstroms in LaTeX

Angstrom is a unit of length .... please do not use (never, NEVER EVER) italic units
they have to be outside of math-enviroment or you make them non-italic (e.g.: $\mathrm{}$)

Thus, \AA in text enviroment is the most suitable solution .... furthermore, do not forget the "\," between number and unit, else you cold have to fight on linebreaks and so on (e.g.: 123\,\AA).

Regards
• Jun 24th 2014, 05:38 AM
topsquark
Re: Angstroms in LaTeX
I'm not poking fun at your comment, but you are aware that this thread is 5 years old? (Sun)

-Dan
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 12 Last