[Tex/LaTex] How to write the LaTeX code of this Meijer G function

math-modemathtools

Hi, I need some help on the LaTeX code of the Meijer G function on the right side of below equation. I want to know what is the LaTeX command for the function shown in the following image.

For the general Meijer G function, the following LaTeX codes work:

\DeclarePairedDelimiterX\MeijerM[3]{\lparen}{\rparen}%
{\,#3\delimsize\vert\begin{smallmatrix}#1 \\ #2\end{smallmatrix}}

\newcommand\MeijerG[8][]{%
  G^{\,#2,#3}_{#4,#5}\MeijerM[#1]{#6}{#7}{#8}}

\WithSuffix\newcommand\MeijerG*[7]{%
  G^{\,#1,#2}_{#3,#4}\MeijerM*{#5}{#6}{#7}}

For instance, the LaTeX code \MeijerG*{1}{1}{1}{1}{0 }{0}{x} will generate the Meijer G function like :

Thanks a lot in advance.

Best Answer

With a handier syntax:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{geometry} % more generous width
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{xparse}

\ExplSyntaxOn
\NewDocumentCommand{\MeijerG}{smmmm}
 {
  \IfBooleanTF{#1}
   {
    \vic_meijerg:nnnnnn { #2 } { #3 } { #4 } { #5 } { small } { }
   }
   {
    \vic_meijerg:nnnnnn { #2 } { #3 } { #4 } { #5 } { } { \; }
   }
 }

\seq_new:N \l__vic_meijerg_args_in_seq
\seq_new:N \l__vic_meijerg_args_out_seq

\cs_new_protected:Nn \vic_meijerg:nnnnnn
 {
  \seq_set_split:Nnn \l__vic_meijerg_args_in_seq { | } { #3 }
  \seq_clear:N \l__vic_meijerg_args_out_seq  
  \seq_map_inline:Nn \l__vic_meijerg_args_in_seq
   {
    \seq_put_right:Nn \l__vic_meijerg_args_out_seq
     {
      \begin{#5matrix} ##1 \end{#5matrix}
     }
   }
  G\sp{#1}\sb{#2}
  \left(
  \seq_use:Nn \l__vic_meijerg_args_out_seq { #6\middle|#6 }
  #6\middle|#6
  #4
  \right)
 }
\ExplSyntaxOff

\begin{document}

In line
$
\MeijerG*
  {n,m:m_1,n_1:m_2,n_2} % superscript
  {q,p:p_1,q_1:p_2,q_2} % subscript
  {
   1-\alpha-b_1,\ldots,1-\alpha-b_q\\
   1-\alpha-a_1,\ldots,1-\alpha-a_p
   |
   a_{11},\ldots,a_{1p_1} \\
   b_{11},\ldots,b_{1q_1}
   |
   a_{21},\ldots,a_{2p_1}\\
   b_{21},\ldots,b_{2q_1}
  }
  {\frac{x}{z},\frac{y}{z}}
$
and $\MeijerG*{1,1}{1,1}{ 0 \\ 0 } { x }$. Display:
\begin{gather}
\MeijerG
  {n,m:m_1,n_1:m_2,n_2} % superscript
  {q,p:p_1,q_1:p_2,q_2} % subscript
  {
   1-\alpha-b_1,\ldots,1-\alpha-b_q\\
   1-\alpha-a_1,\ldots,1-\alpha-a_p
   |
   a_{11},\ldots,a_{1p_1} \\
   b_{11},\ldots,b_{1q_1}
   |
   a_{21},\ldots,a_{2p_1}\\
   b_{21},\ldots,b_{2q_1}
  }
  {\frac{x}{z},\frac{y}{z}}
\\
\MeijerG{1,1}{1,1}{ 0 \\ 0 } { x }
\end{gather}

\end{document}

The *-version is for printing the formula inline.

Related Solutions

[Tex/LaTex] Multi-line Equations

Besides the balancing issue associated to the use of \left, \right, your expression can be improved introducing some modifications:

Using \left( ... \right) for the inner expressions produces delimiters that are too big and introduce some additional horizontal space that it's superfluous in this particular case, so I think that it's better to use just (...).
You need to use +{} so that the ending plus sign in the first line is correctly trated as an operator; analogously, you need to use {}+ for the first plus sign in the second line.
Instead of using \left[, \right. in the first line and \right., \left] in the second line, I would suggest you to use \bigl[, \bigr] which don't need to be balanced in each line and produce better sized delimiters in most cases.
The plus sign in the second line must be (according to some standard typographical rules for displayed math expressions) two-ems to the right of the alignment point.

In the following code I include, for comparison, your code (with the balancing problem solved) and then the code implementing my suggestions:

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage[margin=2cm]{geometry}% just for the example
\usepackage{amsmath}

\begin{document}

\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
MSE_{II}(\overline{y}_{CST}) &= MSE_{I}(\overline{y}_{CST})
  +\overline{Y}^{2}\left[ \left( c_{2}^{2}+2c_{1}c_{3} \right)V_{4,\, 0}+2c_{1}c_{2}V_{3,\,0}
  +2\left(2c_{1}c_{2}+c_{3}\right)V_{3,\, 1} + \right. \\ 
& \left. + 2 \left(c_{1}^{2}+c_{2} \right)V_{2,\, 1}+ \left(c_{1}^{2}+2c_{2} \right)V_{2,\, 2} 
 + {2c_{1}V_{1,\, 2}}  \right]
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
MSE_{II} ( \overline{y}_{CST} ) &= MSE_{I} ( \overline{y}_{CST} )
  + \overline{Y}^{2} \bigl[ (c_{2}^{2} + 2c_{1}c_{3} ) V_{4,\, 0} + 2c_{1}c_{2} V_{3,\,0}
  + 2 ( 2c_{1}c_{2} + c_{3} ) V_{3,\, 1} +{} \\ 
&\qquad {}+ 2 ( c_{1}^{2} + c_{2} )V_{2,\, 1} + ( c_{1}^{2} + 2c_{2} ) V_{2,\, 2} 
 + {2c_{1}V_{1,\, 2}} \bigr]
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\end{document}

enter image description here

[Tex/LaTex] \begin{equation}: “Display math should end with $$” error

In addition to removing the $ as cmhughes suggested, the blank lines in the equation environment confuse things. This may be why you added the dollar signs - with the blanks, LaTeX otherwise complains about missing $ symbols in the code.

Here's a working version:

\documentclass{article}

\begin{document}

\begin{equation}
  R_{2}=\frac{U_{R_2}}{I_2}=\frac{2,95\, \mathrm{V}}{0,03*10^{-3}\, \mathrm{A}} = 7,10\,\mathrm{k}\Omega \,.
  \label{eq:Bsp_OhmsLaw}
\end{equation}

\end{document}

equation

Best Answer

Related Solutions

[Tex/LaTex] Multi-line Equations

[Tex/LaTex] \begin{equation}: “Display math should end with $$” error

Related Question