The problem seems to be a faulty installation of the kurier
bundle: the key is in the message
LaTeX Font Info: No file OT1kurierm.fd
That file, under the name ot1kurierm.fd
, should be present in the same directory as kurier.sty
.
I suggest to install the current MacTeX distribution. Keep in mind that in a few days (as of today, 2012/06/25) the 2012 release of MacTeX should be available.
I am pretty sure the answer to the question in the title—Is solving math problems in LaTeX without paper slower than in paper?—is yes. I work with a computer keyboard in front of me and a pen and pad to my left (yes, I'm left-handed), and when I'm typing up solutions to problems I usually leave the keyboard to scratch on the pad for a while, then go back to the keyboard to LaTeX it up. I can think of some reasons why this might be more true:
- I can think faster than I can type.
- Although in English I type much faster than I write, when writing math I write much faster than I can type LaTeX.
- I can draw pictures by hand much much faster than drawing them in LaTeX.
I admit that this is a totally subjective answer, but I don't know of any colleagues who work first in LaTeX without scribbling on paper or a black/whiteboard first.
As far as tips to be more productive when writing LaTeX, I would suggest to follow good coding practices. AFAIK there are not that many settled conventions on code organization, but some general practices I follow are:
Start each sentence on a new line.
Indent code within environment blocks.
Use braces to enclose groups even if they are only one token. I break this rule in super/subscripts, but adhere to it closely in \frac
-tions.
Use the cool
package to make many math expression more like macros.
So for instance (not my best example but one that's at hand),
Let $E$ be the solid.
Its volume is $\frac{1}{8} \frac{4}{3}\pi = \frac{\pi}{6}$.
In spherical coordinates it is a wedge $0 \leq \rho\leq 1$, $0 \leq \theta \leq \pi/2$, $0 \leq \phi\leq \pi/2$.
So the moments are
\begin{align*}
M_{yz} = \iiint_E x\,dV &= \int_0^{\pi/2}\int_0^{\pi/2} \int_0^1 (\rho \Sin{\phi}\Cos{\theta})\rho^2\Sin{\phi}\,d\rho\,d\phi\,d\theta \\
&= \int_0^{\pi/2} \Cos{\theta} \,d\theta\cdot\int_0^{\pi/2} \Sin{\phi}^2 \,d\phi\cdot\int_0^{1} \rho^3\,d\rho \\
&= 1 \cdot \frac{\pi}{4} \cdot \frac{1}{4} = \frac{\pi}{16} \\
M_{yz} = \iiint_E y\,dV
&= \int_0^{\pi/2}\int_0^{\pi/2} \int_0^1 (\rho \Sin{\phi}\Sin{\theta})\rho^2\Sin{\phi}\,d\rho\,d\phi\,d\theta \\
&= \int_0^{\pi/2} \Sin{\theta} \,d\theta\cdot\int_0^{\pi/2} \Sin{\phi}^2\,d\phi \cdot \int_0^1 \rho^3 \,d\rho \\
&= 1 \cdot \frac{\pi}{4} \cdot \frac{1}{4} = \frac{\pi}{16} \\
M_{xy} = \iiint_E z\,dV
&= \int_0^{\pi/2}\int_0^{\pi/2} \int_0^1 (\rho \Cos{\phi})\rho^2\Sin{\phi}\,d\rho\,d\phi\,d\theta \\
&= \int_0^{\pi/2} d\theta\cdot \int_0^{\pi/2} \Sin{\phi}\Cos{\phi}\,d\phi \cdot \int_0^1 \rho^3 \,d\rho \\
&= \frac{\pi}{2} \cdot \frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{1}{4} = \frac{\pi}{16}
\end{align*}
So the coordinates of the centroid are
$\left(\frac{3}{8},\frac{3}{8},\frac{3}{8}\right)$
Even for this one I did work it out on paper first.
Best Answer
Welcome, to the site and to LaTeX!
Well, the number one thing I cannot stress enough is not to skip in and out of math mode. This is a very common mistake, so don't feel bad about it, but math mode (
$ ... $
) doesn't mean 'mathify' this, and it isn't primarily a way of getting special characters (although many commands only work in math mode). It's designed for typesetting the entire mathmatical object. Thus all of this:Should be within one pair of
$ ... $
. LaTeX's math mode is designed to give you the correct spacing around operators such as+
and=
, don't circumvent this.I don't know if
/textbf${\hat{j}}
is a typo for\textbf${\hat{j}}
(i.e. you have/
but you meant\
) or whether you left out the\
:/\textbf${\hat{j}}
$
must not come between\textbf
and{
.Using
\textbf{}
in math mode is not exactly wrong in this case, but it is a bit counter-intuitive. Try\mathbf{}
Using
\emph
within math mode is definitely wrong.\emph{}
is used within text to emphasise it. By default,\emph{}
italicises text, but it is not an all-purpose italicisation command.$ ... $
italicises characters by default and the usual problem people have is making things not italicised! It is also a text mode command, which means math mode commands like^
will not work within\emph{}
unless you enter math mode again, totally circumventing the\emph{}
in this circumstance, i.e.:\emph{foo $bar^{baz}$}
.\hat{i}
will give you an i with a hat over the tittle. Having it bold, and dotless, and with a hat, is a much more difficult task than it may look. Ordinarily, you'd want to use\hat{\imath}
, but then it would not be bold. Using\mathbf{}
won't make it bold, but loading thebm
package and using\bm{\hat{\imath}}
will make it bold, but then it won't be upright, it'll be italic.So, I used this question:
Bold upright i-hat and j-hat for vector notation
As mentioned above,
^
must be used in math mode.\emph{b} = 0.81 m/s^3
will fail.Also, avoid using
\emph{}
for variables, use math mode.What I guess you want:
Although you should maybe look into the
siunitx
package for typesetting units more easily.The
siunitx
way. Note the use of\usepackage[per-mode=symbol]{siunitx}
in the preamble to give you the solidus for "per", as opposed to, e.g. m s-3