How to get delimiters of the same size when using fourier?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












Consider the following MWE:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools 
usepackage[upright]fourier 

begindocument

begingather*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauleft[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

begingather*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauBigg[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBigg]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

enddocument


As you can see in the screenshot below, the squared parentheses of the two parts of the expression are not of the same size. I've been playing around to get them of the same size, but it turns out that I can only do so by commenting usepackagefourier, something I would personally like to avoid. Using left[right] is too big (case 1), whereas using Bigg[Bigg] (the biggest I know) is not big enough (case 2).



enter image description here



My question is thus simple: how can I get them of the same size without dropping usepackagefourier?



Thank you all very much for your time and effort.






fourier







share|improve this question

















  • 1




    You could use, for instance, renewcommandBIGbBigg@3, then use BIG instead.
    – Phelype Oleinik
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    <<case 2 id fine for me. I don't think delimiters have to encompass the totality of the sum symbol, including the indices.
    – Bernard
    5 hours ago










  • @PhelypeOleinik Thank you for your comment. If it were an answer, I'd accept it...
    – Héctor
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Yes, but the simplest solution consists in using something like Biggl[ ... Biggr] in both cases.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    That's a possibility. Personally, I very rarely use left ...right.. The horizontal spacing is better.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago














up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












Consider the following MWE:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools 
usepackage[upright]fourier 

begindocument

begingather*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauleft[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

begingather*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauBigg[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBigg]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

enddocument


As you can see in the screenshot below, the squared parentheses of the two parts of the expression are not of the same size. I've been playing around to get them of the same size, but it turns out that I can only do so by commenting usepackagefourier, something I would personally like to avoid. Using left[right] is too big (case 1), whereas using Bigg[Bigg] (the biggest I know) is not big enough (case 2).



enter image description here



My question is thus simple: how can I get them of the same size without dropping usepackagefourier?



Thank you all very much for your time and effort.






fourier







share|improve this question

















  • 1




    You could use, for instance, renewcommandBIGbBigg@3, then use BIG instead.
    – Phelype Oleinik
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    <<case 2 id fine for me. I don't think delimiters have to encompass the totality of the sum symbol, including the indices.
    – Bernard
    5 hours ago










  • @PhelypeOleinik Thank you for your comment. If it were an answer, I'd accept it...
    – Héctor
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Yes, but the simplest solution consists in using something like Biggl[ ... Biggr] in both cases.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    That's a possibility. Personally, I very rarely use left ...right.. The horizontal spacing is better.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago












up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1






1





Consider the following MWE:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools 
usepackage[upright]fourier 

begindocument

begingather*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauleft[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

begingather*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauBigg[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBigg]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

enddocument


As you can see in the screenshot below, the squared parentheses of the two parts of the expression are not of the same size. I've been playing around to get them of the same size, but it turns out that I can only do so by commenting usepackagefourier, something I would personally like to avoid. Using left[right] is too big (case 1), whereas using Bigg[Bigg] (the biggest I know) is not big enough (case 2).



enter image description here



My question is thus simple: how can I get them of the same size without dropping usepackagefourier?



Thank you all very much for your time and effort.






fourier







share|improve this question













Consider the following MWE:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools 
usepackage[upright]fourier 

begindocument

begingather*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauleft[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

begingather*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslanttauBigg[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBigg]+(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endgather*

enddocument


As you can see in the screenshot below, the squared parentheses of the two parts of the expression are not of the same size. I've been playing around to get them of the same size, but it turns out that I can only do so by commenting usepackagefourier, something I would personally like to avoid. Using left[right] is too big (case 1), whereas using Bigg[Bigg] (the biggest I know) is not big enough (case 2).



enter image description here



My question is thus simple: how can I get them of the same size without dropping usepackagefourier?



Thank you all very much for your time and effort.






fourier




fourier






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 5 hours ago









Héctor

764316




764316







  • 1




    You could use, for instance, renewcommandBIGbBigg@3, then use BIG instead.
    – Phelype Oleinik
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    <<case 2 id fine for me. I don't think delimiters have to encompass the totality of the sum symbol, including the indices.
    – Bernard
    5 hours ago










  • @PhelypeOleinik Thank you for your comment. If it were an answer, I'd accept it...
    – Héctor
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Yes, but the simplest solution consists in using something like Biggl[ ... Biggr] in both cases.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    That's a possibility. Personally, I very rarely use left ...right.. The horizontal spacing is better.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago












  • 1




    You could use, for instance, renewcommandBIGbBigg@3, then use BIG instead.
    – Phelype Oleinik
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    <<case 2 id fine for me. I don't think delimiters have to encompass the totality of the sum symbol, including the indices.
    – Bernard
    5 hours ago










  • @PhelypeOleinik Thank you for your comment. If it were an answer, I'd accept it...
    – Héctor
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Yes, but the simplest solution consists in using something like Biggl[ ... Biggr] in both cases.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago







  • 1




    That's a possibility. Personally, I very rarely use left ...right.. The horizontal spacing is better.
    – Bernard
    4 hours ago







1




1




You could use, for instance, renewcommandBIGbBigg@3, then use BIG instead.
– Phelype Oleinik
5 hours ago




You could use, for instance, renewcommandBIGbBigg@3, then use BIG instead.
– Phelype Oleinik
5 hours ago




1




1




<<case 2 id fine for me. I don't think delimiters have to encompass the totality of the sum symbol, including the indices.
– Bernard
5 hours ago




<<case 2 id fine for me. I don't think delimiters have to encompass the totality of the sum symbol, including the indices.
– Bernard
5 hours ago












@PhelypeOleinik Thank you for your comment. If it were an answer, I'd accept it...
– Héctor
4 hours ago




@PhelypeOleinik Thank you for your comment. If it were an answer, I'd accept it...
– Héctor
4 hours ago




1




1




Yes, but the simplest solution consists in using something like Biggl[ ... Biggr] in both cases.
– Bernard
4 hours ago





Yes, but the simplest solution consists in using something like Biggl[ ... Biggr] in both cases.
– Bernard
4 hours ago





1




1




That's a possibility. Personally, I very rarely use left ...right.. The horizontal spacing is better.
– Bernard
4 hours ago




That's a possibility. Personally, I very rarely use left ...right.. The horizontal spacing is better.
– Bernard
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










What is causing you this trouble is the i lowered a tad too much:




enter image description here




There are a few approaches to overcome this and get the delimiter size you want. To name a few:




  • You can smash the i to make it have zero depth and height, then it won't be a problem anymore:



    beginequation*
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
     +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • You can also change TeX's delimiterfactor and delimitershortfall and let TeX adjust the delimiters accordingly:



    beginequation*
     delimitershortfall=7pt % Found by trial-and-error
     delimiterfactor=810 % Move outside the `equation*` to make the effect global
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
     +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • Or you can define a new size with amsmath's (loaded by mathtools) bBigg@. Note that simply using BIG you get a different spacing around the delimiters.



    makeatletter
    defBIGbBigg@3 % big = 1; Big = 1.5; bigg = 2; and Bigg = 2.5
    defBIGlmathopenBIG
    defBIGrmathcloseBIG
    makeatother

    beginequation*
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
     +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    endequation*


Full code:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
 delimitershortfall=7pt
 delimiterfactor=810
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

makeatletter
defBIGbBigg@3
defBIGlmathopenBIG
defBIGrmathcloseBIG
makeatother

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
 +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
endequation*

enddocument



enter image description here







share|improve this answer




















  • Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
    – Héctor
    3 hours ago










Your Answer







StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f455336%2fhow-to-get-delimiters-of-the-same-size-when-using-fourier%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote



accepted










What is causing you this trouble is the i lowered a tad too much:




enter image description here




There are a few approaches to overcome this and get the delimiter size you want. To name a few:




  • You can smash the i to make it have zero depth and height, then it won't be a problem anymore:



    beginequation*
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
     +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • You can also change TeX's delimiterfactor and delimitershortfall and let TeX adjust the delimiters accordingly:



    beginequation*
     delimitershortfall=7pt % Found by trial-and-error
     delimiterfactor=810 % Move outside the `equation*` to make the effect global
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
     +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • Or you can define a new size with amsmath's (loaded by mathtools) bBigg@. Note that simply using BIG you get a different spacing around the delimiters.



    makeatletter
    defBIGbBigg@3 % big = 1; Big = 1.5; bigg = 2; and Bigg = 2.5
    defBIGlmathopenBIG
    defBIGrmathcloseBIG
    makeatother

    beginequation*
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
     +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    endequation*


Full code:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
 delimitershortfall=7pt
 delimiterfactor=810
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

makeatletter
defBIGbBigg@3
defBIGlmathopenBIG
defBIGrmathcloseBIG
makeatother

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
 +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
endequation*

enddocument



enter image description here







share|improve this answer




















  • Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
    – Héctor
    3 hours ago














up vote
4
down vote



accepted










What is causing you this trouble is the i lowered a tad too much:




enter image description here




There are a few approaches to overcome this and get the delimiter size you want. To name a few:




  • You can smash the i to make it have zero depth and height, then it won't be a problem anymore:



    beginequation*
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
     +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • You can also change TeX's delimiterfactor and delimitershortfall and let TeX adjust the delimiters accordingly:



    beginequation*
     delimitershortfall=7pt % Found by trial-and-error
     delimiterfactor=810 % Move outside the `equation*` to make the effect global
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
     +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • Or you can define a new size with amsmath's (loaded by mathtools) bBigg@. Note that simply using BIG you get a different spacing around the delimiters.



    makeatletter
    defBIGbBigg@3 % big = 1; Big = 1.5; bigg = 2; and Bigg = 2.5
    defBIGlmathopenBIG
    defBIGrmathcloseBIG
    makeatother

    beginequation*
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
     +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    endequation*


Full code:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
 delimitershortfall=7pt
 delimiterfactor=810
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

makeatletter
defBIGbBigg@3
defBIGlmathopenBIG
defBIGrmathcloseBIG
makeatother

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
 +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
endequation*

enddocument



enter image description here







share|improve this answer




















  • Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
    – Héctor
    3 hours ago












up vote
4
down vote



accepted







up vote
4
down vote



accepted






What is causing you this trouble is the i lowered a tad too much:




enter image description here




There are a few approaches to overcome this and get the delimiter size you want. To name a few:




  • You can smash the i to make it have zero depth and height, then it won't be a problem anymore:



    beginequation*
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
     +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • You can also change TeX's delimiterfactor and delimitershortfall and let TeX adjust the delimiters accordingly:



    beginequation*
     delimitershortfall=7pt % Found by trial-and-error
     delimiterfactor=810 % Move outside the `equation*` to make the effect global
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
     +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • Or you can define a new size with amsmath's (loaded by mathtools) bBigg@. Note that simply using BIG you get a different spacing around the delimiters.



    makeatletter
    defBIGbBigg@3 % big = 1; Big = 1.5; bigg = 2; and Bigg = 2.5
    defBIGlmathopenBIG
    defBIGrmathcloseBIG
    makeatother

    beginequation*
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
     +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    endequation*


Full code:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
 delimitershortfall=7pt
 delimiterfactor=810
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

makeatletter
defBIGbBigg@3
defBIGlmathopenBIG
defBIGrmathcloseBIG
makeatother

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
 +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
endequation*

enddocument



enter image description here







share|improve this answer












What is causing you this trouble is the i lowered a tad too much:




enter image description here




There are a few approaches to overcome this and get the delimiter size you want. To name a few:




  • You can smash the i to make it have zero depth and height, then it won't be a problem anymore:



    beginequation*
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
     +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • You can also change TeX's delimiterfactor and delimitershortfall and let TeX adjust the delimiters accordingly:



    beginequation*
     delimitershortfall=7pt % Found by trial-and-error
     delimiterfactor=810 % Move outside the `equation*` to make the effect global
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
     +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
    endequation*



  • Or you can define a new size with amsmath's (loaded by mathtools) bBigg@. Note that simply using BIG you get a different spacing around the delimiters.



    makeatletter
    defBIGbBigg@3 % big = 1; Big = 1.5; bigg = 2; and Bigg = 2.5
    defBIGlmathopenBIG
    defBIGrmathcloseBIG
    makeatother

    beginequation*
     sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
     tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
     +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
    endequation*


Full code:



documentclassscrartcl

usepackagemathtools
usepackage[upright]fourier

begindocument

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_smashi^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

beginequation*
 delimitershortfall=7pt
 delimiterfactor=810
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau left[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kright]
 +(1-tau)left[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kright]
endequation*

makeatletter
defBIGbBigg@3
defBIGlmathopenBIG
defBIGrmathcloseBIG
makeatother

beginequation*
 sigma_i+sigma_ngeqslant
 tau BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(i)+nu(R_i^-1cupn)-sum_kin R_i^-1sigma_kBIGr]
 +(1-tau)BIGl[nu_sigma^Q(n)+nu(R_n^-1cupi)-sum_kin R_n^-1sigma_kBIGr]
endequation*

enddocument



enter image description here








share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 3 hours ago









Phelype Oleinik

18.3k53972




18.3k53972











  • Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
    – Héctor
    3 hours ago
















  • Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
    – Héctor
    3 hours ago















Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
– Héctor
3 hours ago




Great answer, since it provides a few cool alternatives. Thank you!
– Héctor
3 hours ago

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f455336%2fhow-to-get-delimiters-of-the-same-size-when-using-fourier%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 31 down vote favorite 4 I hold a PhD in mechanical engineering with a 7 year background in self-guided, self-paced research including 2 years as a graduate level course instructor and a subject matter expert for various engineering projects in a university setting in the United States. For the last 10-11 months, I am working in a research industry in France where my task is to debug C++ spaghetti code written over a period of several years by my current supervisor. It is a team of 2: just I and my supervisor. Diurnally, I am posed with a "bug of the day" to get out of this C++ code. My supervisor generally gives me about 15-30 minutes to solve it and then accosts me about whether or not the task is completed and then rinses and repeats this until the end of the day. Off-late, my supervisor has been holding 6-7 hour long "meetin
Read more

Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite Many fantasy worlds have multiple humanoid species (elves, orcs, humans, etc) living in the same world, in addition to that, they often have the ability to interbreed. And I can't help but question their believability... fantasy-races reproduction interspecies-relations share | improve this question edited Aug 9 at 14:46 Michael Kjörling ♦ 21.1k 10 85 161 asked Aug 9 at 13:13 Chlodio 118 6 closed as unclear what you're asking by MichaelK, Gryphon, John, Vincent, Frostfyre Aug 9 at 15:25 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 3 Stack Exchange exist to
Read more

Confectionery

Image
Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of
Read more