superscripts
I am used to use ** instead of ^.
Is it possible to somehow define macro that would interpret ** as ^?
I know that I can write ** and in the end replace it with ^ but that macro would be much more comfortable.
I have been looking for this few months ago and I discovered that you can redefine sign for superscript, but I only found that I can redefine it with only one sign but not with two.
Thank you
Here's an emulation of what you'd get by raising the superscript. In the first line the result of
$J_{ne}\bm{\mathsf{J}}_{ne}^{-1}$
$J^{}_{ne}\bm{\mathsf{J}}_{ne}^{-1}$
showing left the bad output and on the right the recommended one; in the second line the emulation of raising the superscript (obtained by pretending that the subscript has zero width and adding a superscript to \mathstrut:
$J_{ne}\bm{\mathsf{J}}_{ne}^{-1}$
$J_{ne}\bm{\mathsf{J}}_{\mathrlap{ne}}{\mathstrut}^{-1}$
Next the two examples embedded in text, in the same order; I've no doubt in choosing the first one (lowering the subscript).
You can drop in a \nolimits
\documentclass{article}
%\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\[\sup' S\]
\[\sup\nolimits' S \]
\end{document}
Best Answer
You can do it. Don't.1
1 It's true that several languages use
**for denoting exponentiation (but several others use^). They might also have rules about the interpretation of2**3**4, which TeX doesn't have and they probably accept2 ** 12and this will definitely give the wrong result with TeX. Not because of the spaces, which are basically ignored in math mode, but because2^{12}is the correct input. You could also be prone to type things like2**(3+5)that would lead to disaster.When in Rome, do as the Romans do.