Minimal working example:
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\[ {A^\mu}_\nu \]
\[ {\bar{A}^\mu}_\nu \]
\end{document}
The result is.
Why is the placement of upper and lower indices in the second one wrong?
math-modesubscriptssuperscripts
Minimal working example:
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\begin{document}
\[ {A^\mu}_\nu \]
\[ {\bar{A}^\mu}_\nu \]
\end{document}
The result is.
Why is the placement of upper and lower indices in the second one wrong?
Best Answer
From the TeXbook, p. 290:
So in the first example
the <math field> is
A^\mu
which has a superscript, so the braces are not removed. In the second example,we are in the other situation, because
\bar{A}
is an Acc atom. So the braces are removed and ineffective.Why did Knuth choose to do this? I don't really know, but the main reason could be the connected to making double accents. In a case such as
one would like to put the second bar over
\bar{A}
, rather than over the whole subformulas. Actually the Plain TeX macros don't easily allow for making double math accents, problem which is solved byamsmath
.