How to place a two-row limit expression below the integral sign?

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











up vote
5
down vote

favorite












How do I write multiple lines beneath the integral sign?



MWE:



 documentclassarticle
 usepackageamsmath

 begindocument

 beginequation
 int mathcalDphi(x)=
 int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx)
 int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx)
 int_phi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),
 phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)
 mathcalDphi(x)
 endequation

 enddocument


I would like the output to be as below (highlighted):



enter image description here






math-mode equations







share|improve this question



























    up vote
    5
    down vote

    favorite












    How do I write multiple lines beneath the integral sign?



    MWE:



     documentclassarticle
     usepackageamsmath

     begindocument

     beginequation
     int mathcalDphi(x)=
     int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx)
     int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx)
     int_phi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),
     phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)
     mathcalDphi(x)
     endequation

     enddocument


    I would like the output to be as below (highlighted):



    enter image description here






    math-mode equations







    share|improve this question

























      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite











      How do I write multiple lines beneath the integral sign?



      MWE:



       documentclassarticle
       usepackageamsmath

       begindocument

       beginequation
       int mathcalDphi(x)=
       int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx)
       int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx)
       int_phi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),
       phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)
       mathcalDphi(x)
       endequation

       enddocument


      I would like the output to be as below (highlighted):



      enter image description here






      math-mode equations







      share|improve this question















      How do I write multiple lines beneath the integral sign?



      MWE:



       documentclassarticle
       usepackageamsmath

       begindocument

       beginequation
       int mathcalDphi(x)=
       int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx)
       int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx)
       int_phi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),
       phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)
       mathcalDphi(x)
       endequation

       enddocument


      I would like the output to be as below (highlighted):



      enter image description here






      math-mode equations




      math-mode equations






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 6 mins ago









      Mico

      265k30357737




      265k30357737










      asked 16 hours ago









      jowadul kader

      332




      332




















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted










          Here's a variant on @Bernard's third equation, using smashoperator[r]... instead of smashoperator....



          Note that I've reduced the distance between the int and mathcalD terms slightly, by inserting ! ("negative thinspace") directives. I've also replaced textbfx with mathbfx.



          enter image description here



          documentclassarticle
          usepackagemathtools % for smashoperator macro
          begindocument
          beginequation
           int! mathcalDphi(x)=
           int! mathcalDphi_1(mathbfx)
           int! mathcalDphi_2(mathbfx)
           smashoperator[r]intlimits_substack%
           phi(x^0_1,mathbfx)=phi_1(mathbfx),\
           phi(x^0_2,mathbfx)=phi_2(mathbfx)hfill
           ! mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation
          enddocument





          share|improve this answer




















          • thank you.it was very helpful..
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago










          • @jowadulkader - You're most welcome! :-)
            – Mico
            13 hours ago

















          up vote
          7
          down vote













          My proposal is to back up a little, but not too much as with smashoperator:



          documentclassarticle
          usepackageamsmath

          begindocument

          beginequation
          int mathcalDphi(x)=
          int mathcalDphi_1(mathbfx)
          int mathcalDphi_2(mathbfx)
          intlimits_scriptscriptstylemspace-12mu
           beginsubarrayl
           phi(x^0_1,mathbfx)=phi_1(mathbfx),\
           phi(x^0_2,mathbfx)=phi_2(mathbfx)
           endsubarraymspace-24mu
           mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation

          enddocument


          The important part is intlimits so the condition is placed below the integral sign. The subarray environment is similar to substack, but it takes an argument for the alignment of the rows.



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer




















          • thanks egreg.it was wonderful and different approach.
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago

















          up vote
          5
          down vote













          In my opinion, it looks nicer at the bottom right side of the integral. Anyway, here are 3 possibilies: 



          documentclassarticle

          usepackagemathtools
          begindocument

          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) int_substackphi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut mathcalDphi(x) 
          endequation
          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) int_mathrlapsubstackmathstrut\phi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut; mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation
          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) smashoperator int_substackphi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation

          enddocument


          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer




















          • thanks a lot.it was helpful too..
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago


















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          By making use of the substack command (requires the amsmath package):



          undersetsubstackphi(x_1^0,x) = phi_1(x) \ phi(x_2^0,x)= phi_2(x)int


          Some additional pointers:



          1. Since you're using mathcalD fairly often, I would advise declaring a new command with newcommandDensuremathmathcalD. Then you can simply use D every time you need it. Makes your code far more readable.

          2. Put tag9.16 at the end of the line to tag the equation as (9.16), as per the image.

          3. Your code for phi(x^0_2,textbfx) produces parentheses which are not big enough. You should instead use left( right) to have them correctly sized.

          4. You should not use textbfx to indicate the vector x. Instead, use vecx (which puts an arrow above the x). If you want to change the output of vecx to bold text instead, use renewcommandvecmathbf.

          All these suggestions plus the original answer are incorporated here:



          newcommandDensuremathmathcalD
          renewcommandvecmathbf

          beginequation 
          intDphi(x)=
          int Dphi_1(vecx) 
          int Dphi_2(vecx) 
          intlimits_substackphileft(x_1^0,vecxright) = phi_1(vecx) \ phileft(x_2^0,vecxright)= phi_2(vecx) Dphi(x) tag9.16
          endequation


          This gives the desired output:



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer






















          • thank you very much sir.;)
            – jowadul kader
            15 hours ago










          • @campa I kind of agree re the brackets, but I'll leave it to OP's tastes. As for textbf, I agree that it's better to redefine the vec command instead; I'll edit that into my answer in a while.
            – Thevesh Theva
            15 hours ago







          • 2




            underset? Oh, no!
            – egreg
            15 hours ago






          • 2




            I believe it's far more idiomatic to write intlimits_... than underset...int.
            – Mico
            15 hours ago







          • 1




            I don't think it's correct to claim that the some of the parentheses in the terms below the int symbol have to be enlarged. The basic size does just fine. And, it is not necessary to switch from an equation environment to an equation* environment in order to use tag. That said, I don't think that reproducing a specific equation number is part of the OP's stated objectives.
            – Mico
            14 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%2f453963%2fhow-to-place-a-two-row-limit-expression-below-the-integral-sign%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest

















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes








          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted










          Here's a variant on @Bernard's third equation, using smashoperator[r]... instead of smashoperator....



          Note that I've reduced the distance between the int and mathcalD terms slightly, by inserting ! ("negative thinspace") directives. I've also replaced textbfx with mathbfx.



          enter image description here



          documentclassarticle
          usepackagemathtools % for smashoperator macro
          begindocument
          beginequation
           int! mathcalDphi(x)=
           int! mathcalDphi_1(mathbfx)
           int! mathcalDphi_2(mathbfx)
           smashoperator[r]intlimits_substack%
           phi(x^0_1,mathbfx)=phi_1(mathbfx),\
           phi(x^0_2,mathbfx)=phi_2(mathbfx)hfill
           ! mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation
          enddocument





          share|improve this answer




















          • thank you.it was very helpful..
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago










          • @jowadulkader - You're most welcome! :-)
            – Mico
            13 hours ago














          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted










          Here's a variant on @Bernard's third equation, using smashoperator[r]... instead of smashoperator....



          Note that I've reduced the distance between the int and mathcalD terms slightly, by inserting ! ("negative thinspace") directives. I've also replaced textbfx with mathbfx.



          enter image description here



          documentclassarticle
          usepackagemathtools % for smashoperator macro
          begindocument
          beginequation
           int! mathcalDphi(x)=
           int! mathcalDphi_1(mathbfx)
           int! mathcalDphi_2(mathbfx)
           smashoperator[r]intlimits_substack%
           phi(x^0_1,mathbfx)=phi_1(mathbfx),\
           phi(x^0_2,mathbfx)=phi_2(mathbfx)hfill
           ! mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation
          enddocument





          share|improve this answer




















          • thank you.it was very helpful..
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago










          • @jowadulkader - You're most welcome! :-)
            – Mico
            13 hours ago












          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted






          Here's a variant on @Bernard's third equation, using smashoperator[r]... instead of smashoperator....



          Note that I've reduced the distance between the int and mathcalD terms slightly, by inserting ! ("negative thinspace") directives. I've also replaced textbfx with mathbfx.



          enter image description here



          documentclassarticle
          usepackagemathtools % for smashoperator macro
          begindocument
          beginequation
           int! mathcalDphi(x)=
           int! mathcalDphi_1(mathbfx)
           int! mathcalDphi_2(mathbfx)
           smashoperator[r]intlimits_substack%
           phi(x^0_1,mathbfx)=phi_1(mathbfx),\
           phi(x^0_2,mathbfx)=phi_2(mathbfx)hfill
           ! mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation
          enddocument





          share|improve this answer












          Here's a variant on @Bernard's third equation, using smashoperator[r]... instead of smashoperator....



          Note that I've reduced the distance between the int and mathcalD terms slightly, by inserting ! ("negative thinspace") directives. I've also replaced textbfx with mathbfx.



          enter image description here



          documentclassarticle
          usepackagemathtools % for smashoperator macro
          begindocument
          beginequation
           int! mathcalDphi(x)=
           int! mathcalDphi_1(mathbfx)
           int! mathcalDphi_2(mathbfx)
           smashoperator[r]intlimits_substack%
           phi(x^0_1,mathbfx)=phi_1(mathbfx),\
           phi(x^0_2,mathbfx)=phi_2(mathbfx)hfill
           ! mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation
          enddocument






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 15 hours ago









          Mico

          265k30357737




          265k30357737











          • thank you.it was very helpful..
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago










          • @jowadulkader - You're most welcome! :-)
            – Mico
            13 hours ago
















          • thank you.it was very helpful..
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago










          • @jowadulkader - You're most welcome! :-)
            – Mico
            13 hours ago















          thank you.it was very helpful..
          – jowadul kader
          14 hours ago




          thank you.it was very helpful..
          – jowadul kader
          14 hours ago












          @jowadulkader - You're most welcome! :-)
          – Mico
          13 hours ago




          @jowadulkader - You're most welcome! :-)
          – Mico
          13 hours ago










          up vote
          7
          down vote













          My proposal is to back up a little, but not too much as with smashoperator:



          documentclassarticle
          usepackageamsmath

          begindocument

          beginequation
          int mathcalDphi(x)=
          int mathcalDphi_1(mathbfx)
          int mathcalDphi_2(mathbfx)
          intlimits_scriptscriptstylemspace-12mu
           beginsubarrayl
           phi(x^0_1,mathbfx)=phi_1(mathbfx),\
           phi(x^0_2,mathbfx)=phi_2(mathbfx)
           endsubarraymspace-24mu
           mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation

          enddocument


          The important part is intlimits so the condition is placed below the integral sign. The subarray environment is similar to substack, but it takes an argument for the alignment of the rows.



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer




















          • thanks egreg.it was wonderful and different approach.
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago














          up vote
          7
          down vote













          My proposal is to back up a little, but not too much as with smashoperator:



          documentclassarticle
          usepackageamsmath

          begindocument

          beginequation
          int mathcalDphi(x)=
          int mathcalDphi_1(mathbfx)
          int mathcalDphi_2(mathbfx)
          intlimits_scriptscriptstylemspace-12mu
           beginsubarrayl
           phi(x^0_1,mathbfx)=phi_1(mathbfx),\
           phi(x^0_2,mathbfx)=phi_2(mathbfx)
           endsubarraymspace-24mu
           mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation

          enddocument


          The important part is intlimits so the condition is placed below the integral sign. The subarray environment is similar to substack, but it takes an argument for the alignment of the rows.



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer




















          • thanks egreg.it was wonderful and different approach.
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago












          up vote
          7
          down vote










          up vote
          7
          down vote









          My proposal is to back up a little, but not too much as with smashoperator:



          documentclassarticle
          usepackageamsmath

          begindocument

          beginequation
          int mathcalDphi(x)=
          int mathcalDphi_1(mathbfx)
          int mathcalDphi_2(mathbfx)
          intlimits_scriptscriptstylemspace-12mu
           beginsubarrayl
           phi(x^0_1,mathbfx)=phi_1(mathbfx),\
           phi(x^0_2,mathbfx)=phi_2(mathbfx)
           endsubarraymspace-24mu
           mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation

          enddocument


          The important part is intlimits so the condition is placed below the integral sign. The subarray environment is similar to substack, but it takes an argument for the alignment of the rows.



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer












          My proposal is to back up a little, but not too much as with smashoperator:



          documentclassarticle
          usepackageamsmath

          begindocument

          beginequation
          int mathcalDphi(x)=
          int mathcalDphi_1(mathbfx)
          int mathcalDphi_2(mathbfx)
          intlimits_scriptscriptstylemspace-12mu
           beginsubarrayl
           phi(x^0_1,mathbfx)=phi_1(mathbfx),\
           phi(x^0_2,mathbfx)=phi_2(mathbfx)
           endsubarraymspace-24mu
           mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation

          enddocument


          The important part is intlimits so the condition is placed below the integral sign. The subarray environment is similar to substack, but it takes an argument for the alignment of the rows.



          enter image description here







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 15 hours ago









          egreg

          687k8418313078




          687k8418313078











          • thanks egreg.it was wonderful and different approach.
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago
















          • thanks egreg.it was wonderful and different approach.
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago















          thanks egreg.it was wonderful and different approach.
          – jowadul kader
          14 hours ago




          thanks egreg.it was wonderful and different approach.
          – jowadul kader
          14 hours ago










          up vote
          5
          down vote













          In my opinion, it looks nicer at the bottom right side of the integral. Anyway, here are 3 possibilies: 



          documentclassarticle

          usepackagemathtools
          begindocument

          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) int_substackphi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut mathcalDphi(x) 
          endequation
          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) int_mathrlapsubstackmathstrut\phi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut; mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation
          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) smashoperator int_substackphi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation

          enddocument


          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer




















          • thanks a lot.it was helpful too..
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago















          up vote
          5
          down vote













          In my opinion, it looks nicer at the bottom right side of the integral. Anyway, here are 3 possibilies: 



          documentclassarticle

          usepackagemathtools
          begindocument

          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) int_substackphi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut mathcalDphi(x) 
          endequation
          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) int_mathrlapsubstackmathstrut\phi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut; mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation
          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) smashoperator int_substackphi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation

          enddocument


          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer




















          • thanks a lot.it was helpful too..
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago













          up vote
          5
          down vote










          up vote
          5
          down vote









          In my opinion, it looks nicer at the bottom right side of the integral. Anyway, here are 3 possibilies: 



          documentclassarticle

          usepackagemathtools
          begindocument

          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) int_substackphi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut mathcalDphi(x) 
          endequation
          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) int_mathrlapsubstackmathstrut\phi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut; mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation
          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) smashoperator int_substackphi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation

          enddocument


          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer












          In my opinion, it looks nicer at the bottom right side of the integral. Anyway, here are 3 possibilies: 



          documentclassarticle

          usepackagemathtools
          begindocument

          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) int_substackphi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut mathcalDphi(x) 
          endequation
          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) int_mathrlapsubstackmathstrut\phi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut; mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation
          beginequation
          intmathcalDphi(x)=int mathcalDphi_1(textbfx) int mathcalDphi_2(textbfx) smashoperator int_substackphi(x^0_1,textbfx)=phi_1(textbfx),\ phi(x^0_2,textbfx)=phi_2(textbfx)strut mathcalDphi(x)
          endequation

          enddocument


          enter image description here







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 15 hours ago









          Bernard

          157k764190




          157k764190











          • thanks a lot.it was helpful too..
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago

















          • thanks a lot.it was helpful too..
            – jowadul kader
            14 hours ago
















          thanks a lot.it was helpful too..
          – jowadul kader
          14 hours ago





          thanks a lot.it was helpful too..
          – jowadul kader
          14 hours ago











          up vote
          3
          down vote













          By making use of the substack command (requires the amsmath package):



          undersetsubstackphi(x_1^0,x) = phi_1(x) \ phi(x_2^0,x)= phi_2(x)int


          Some additional pointers:



          1. Since you're using mathcalD fairly often, I would advise declaring a new command with newcommandDensuremathmathcalD. Then you can simply use D every time you need it. Makes your code far more readable.

          2. Put tag9.16 at the end of the line to tag the equation as (9.16), as per the image.

          3. Your code for phi(x^0_2,textbfx) produces parentheses which are not big enough. You should instead use left( right) to have them correctly sized.

          4. You should not use textbfx to indicate the vector x. Instead, use vecx (which puts an arrow above the x). If you want to change the output of vecx to bold text instead, use renewcommandvecmathbf.

          All these suggestions plus the original answer are incorporated here:



          newcommandDensuremathmathcalD
          renewcommandvecmathbf

          beginequation 
          intDphi(x)=
          int Dphi_1(vecx) 
          int Dphi_2(vecx) 
          intlimits_substackphileft(x_1^0,vecxright) = phi_1(vecx) \ phileft(x_2^0,vecxright)= phi_2(vecx) Dphi(x) tag9.16
          endequation


          This gives the desired output:



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer






















          • thank you very much sir.;)
            – jowadul kader
            15 hours ago










          • @campa I kind of agree re the brackets, but I'll leave it to OP's tastes. As for textbf, I agree that it's better to redefine the vec command instead; I'll edit that into my answer in a while.
            – Thevesh Theva
            15 hours ago







          • 2




            underset? Oh, no!
            – egreg
            15 hours ago






          • 2




            I believe it's far more idiomatic to write intlimits_... than underset...int.
            – Mico
            15 hours ago







          • 1




            I don't think it's correct to claim that the some of the parentheses in the terms below the int symbol have to be enlarged. The basic size does just fine. And, it is not necessary to switch from an equation environment to an equation* environment in order to use tag. That said, I don't think that reproducing a specific equation number is part of the OP's stated objectives.
            – Mico
            14 hours ago















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          By making use of the substack command (requires the amsmath package):



          undersetsubstackphi(x_1^0,x) = phi_1(x) \ phi(x_2^0,x)= phi_2(x)int


          Some additional pointers:



          1. Since you're using mathcalD fairly often, I would advise declaring a new command with newcommandDensuremathmathcalD. Then you can simply use D every time you need it. Makes your code far more readable.

          2. Put tag9.16 at the end of the line to tag the equation as (9.16), as per the image.

          3. Your code for phi(x^0_2,textbfx) produces parentheses which are not big enough. You should instead use left( right) to have them correctly sized.

          4. You should not use textbfx to indicate the vector x. Instead, use vecx (which puts an arrow above the x). If you want to change the output of vecx to bold text instead, use renewcommandvecmathbf.

          All these suggestions plus the original answer are incorporated here:



          newcommandDensuremathmathcalD
          renewcommandvecmathbf

          beginequation 
          intDphi(x)=
          int Dphi_1(vecx) 
          int Dphi_2(vecx) 
          intlimits_substackphileft(x_1^0,vecxright) = phi_1(vecx) \ phileft(x_2^0,vecxright)= phi_2(vecx) Dphi(x) tag9.16
          endequation


          This gives the desired output:



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer






















          • thank you very much sir.;)
            – jowadul kader
            15 hours ago










          • @campa I kind of agree re the brackets, but I'll leave it to OP's tastes. As for textbf, I agree that it's better to redefine the vec command instead; I'll edit that into my answer in a while.
            – Thevesh Theva
            15 hours ago







          • 2




            underset? Oh, no!
            – egreg
            15 hours ago






          • 2




            I believe it's far more idiomatic to write intlimits_... than underset...int.
            – Mico
            15 hours ago







          • 1




            I don't think it's correct to claim that the some of the parentheses in the terms below the int symbol have to be enlarged. The basic size does just fine. And, it is not necessary to switch from an equation environment to an equation* environment in order to use tag. That said, I don't think that reproducing a specific equation number is part of the OP's stated objectives.
            – Mico
            14 hours ago













          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          By making use of the substack command (requires the amsmath package):



          undersetsubstackphi(x_1^0,x) = phi_1(x) \ phi(x_2^0,x)= phi_2(x)int


          Some additional pointers:



          1. Since you're using mathcalD fairly often, I would advise declaring a new command with newcommandDensuremathmathcalD. Then you can simply use D every time you need it. Makes your code far more readable.

          2. Put tag9.16 at the end of the line to tag the equation as (9.16), as per the image.

          3. Your code for phi(x^0_2,textbfx) produces parentheses which are not big enough. You should instead use left( right) to have them correctly sized.

          4. You should not use textbfx to indicate the vector x. Instead, use vecx (which puts an arrow above the x). If you want to change the output of vecx to bold text instead, use renewcommandvecmathbf.

          All these suggestions plus the original answer are incorporated here:



          newcommandDensuremathmathcalD
          renewcommandvecmathbf

          beginequation 
          intDphi(x)=
          int Dphi_1(vecx) 
          int Dphi_2(vecx) 
          intlimits_substackphileft(x_1^0,vecxright) = phi_1(vecx) \ phileft(x_2^0,vecxright)= phi_2(vecx) Dphi(x) tag9.16
          endequation


          This gives the desired output:



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer














          By making use of the substack command (requires the amsmath package):



          undersetsubstackphi(x_1^0,x) = phi_1(x) \ phi(x_2^0,x)= phi_2(x)int


          Some additional pointers:



          1. Since you're using mathcalD fairly often, I would advise declaring a new command with newcommandDensuremathmathcalD. Then you can simply use D every time you need it. Makes your code far more readable.

          2. Put tag9.16 at the end of the line to tag the equation as (9.16), as per the image.

          3. Your code for phi(x^0_2,textbfx) produces parentheses which are not big enough. You should instead use left( right) to have them correctly sized.

          4. You should not use textbfx to indicate the vector x. Instead, use vecx (which puts an arrow above the x). If you want to change the output of vecx to bold text instead, use renewcommandvecmathbf.

          All these suggestions plus the original answer are incorporated here:



          newcommandDensuremathmathcalD
          renewcommandvecmathbf

          beginequation 
          intDphi(x)=
          int Dphi_1(vecx) 
          int Dphi_2(vecx) 
          intlimits_substackphileft(x_1^0,vecxright) = phi_1(vecx) \ phileft(x_2^0,vecxright)= phi_2(vecx) Dphi(x) tag9.16
          endequation


          This gives the desired output:



          enter image description here







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 14 hours ago

























          answered 15 hours ago









          Thevesh Theva

          33512




          33512











          • thank you very much sir.;)
            – jowadul kader
            15 hours ago










          • @campa I kind of agree re the brackets, but I'll leave it to OP's tastes. As for textbf, I agree that it's better to redefine the vec command instead; I'll edit that into my answer in a while.
            – Thevesh Theva
            15 hours ago







          • 2




            underset? Oh, no!
            – egreg
            15 hours ago






          • 2




            I believe it's far more idiomatic to write intlimits_... than underset...int.
            – Mico
            15 hours ago







          • 1




            I don't think it's correct to claim that the some of the parentheses in the terms below the int symbol have to be enlarged. The basic size does just fine. And, it is not necessary to switch from an equation environment to an equation* environment in order to use tag. That said, I don't think that reproducing a specific equation number is part of the OP's stated objectives.
            – Mico
            14 hours ago

















          • thank you very much sir.;)
            – jowadul kader
            15 hours ago










          • @campa I kind of agree re the brackets, but I'll leave it to OP's tastes. As for textbf, I agree that it's better to redefine the vec command instead; I'll edit that into my answer in a while.
            – Thevesh Theva
            15 hours ago







          • 2




            underset? Oh, no!
            – egreg
            15 hours ago






          • 2




            I believe it's far more idiomatic to write intlimits_... than underset...int.
            – Mico
            15 hours ago







          • 1




            I don't think it's correct to claim that the some of the parentheses in the terms below the int symbol have to be enlarged. The basic size does just fine. And, it is not necessary to switch from an equation environment to an equation* environment in order to use tag. That said, I don't think that reproducing a specific equation number is part of the OP's stated objectives.
            – Mico
            14 hours ago
















          thank you very much sir.;)
          – jowadul kader
          15 hours ago




          thank you very much sir.;)
          – jowadul kader
          15 hours ago












          @campa I kind of agree re the brackets, but I'll leave it to OP's tastes. As for textbf, I agree that it's better to redefine the vec command instead; I'll edit that into my answer in a while.
          – Thevesh Theva
          15 hours ago





          @campa I kind of agree re the brackets, but I'll leave it to OP's tastes. As for textbf, I agree that it's better to redefine the vec command instead; I'll edit that into my answer in a while.
          – Thevesh Theva
          15 hours ago





          2




          2




          underset? Oh, no!
          – egreg
          15 hours ago




          underset? Oh, no!
          – egreg
          15 hours ago




          2




          2




          I believe it's far more idiomatic to write intlimits_... than underset...int.
          – Mico
          15 hours ago





          I believe it's far more idiomatic to write intlimits_... than underset...int.
          – Mico
          15 hours ago





          1




          1




          I don't think it's correct to claim that the some of the parentheses in the terms below the int symbol have to be enlarged. The basic size does just fine. And, it is not necessary to switch from an equation environment to an equation* environment in order to use tag. That said, I don't think that reproducing a specific equation number is part of the OP's stated objectives.
          – Mico
          14 hours ago





          I don't think it's correct to claim that the some of the parentheses in the terms below the int symbol have to be enlarged. The basic size does just fine. And, it is not necessary to switch from an equation environment to an equation* environment in order to use tag. That said, I don't think that reproducing a specific equation number is part of the OP's stated objectives.
          – Mico
          14 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%2f453963%2fhow-to-place-a-two-row-limit-expression-below-the-integral-sign%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