![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The pronunciation help is wrong. please cf. http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/ipa/full/ipachart_cons_pulm_fbmp3.html TeX derives from Greek technê and that is NOT pronounced with an IPA [x] or ['chi'] but with the fortis palatal fricative - IPA ["c with a diacritical ' at its bottom"]. So TeX is not pronounced like 'loch' or GER 'Bach' but like GER 'mich' or GER 'Technik'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.132.57.113 ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 July 2004
Just to be clear here, are we talking about the Voiceless uvular fricative or the Voiceless velar fricative? -- 213.112.81.180 15:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
This is such a matter of controversy that some wikipedian whose native language includes the right 'ch' sound should record the correct pronunciation and put it on this page. Zaha 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Would it be at all worthwhile to include a note to the effect that it's not pronounced like the first syllable of Texas, or would that just be redundant? Hellbus ( talk) 04:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I noticed on de:Diskussion:TeX that one user asked the question in a letter to Knuth himself some time ago, and got the folowing reply:
I do not get angry when people pronounce TeX in their favorite way...and in Germany many use a soft ch because the χ follows the vowel e, not the harder ch that follows the vowel a. In Russia, 'tex' is a very common word, pronounced 'tyekh'. But I believe the most proper pronunciation is heard in Greece, where you have the harsher ch of ach and Loch.
Cordially don knuth (ka NOOTH)
P.S. I admire the English Wikipedia, but am concerned that articles are a bit too easy for me to change.
So, this makes it clear that the intended target pronunciation is indeed [tεx] rather than [tεç]. — EJ ( talk) 10:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
What do people think of adding a picture that illustrates the "spelling" of TeX, similar to the one at the beginning of the LaTeX article? – Matt 09:56, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Please avoid using the TeX logo when you cannot print it properly as in HTML. If you want to have the logo, upload a bitmap. – Torsten Bronger 12:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
{{TeX}}
template and that looks really unreadable on screen and the {{TeX-logo}}
template that does not follow
Knuth’s recommendations to the point but is simpler and readable on screen, could we replace TeX with either one? And,
BTW, please let me know which version you prefer. --
Yecril (
talk)
20:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)I am not too convinced about the section TeX#TeX examples. Do we really want to write this section as a tutorial, with the "hello" code, the details of commands to type to compile the source, etc ? I prefer the way the MetaPost article does it: provide one relatively complex source code, along with the result it produces when compiled. Opinions? -- Schutz 01:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Anyone notice that in the sample image, it displays the result of a definite integral as an indefinite integral? It's a bit picky but all that needs to be done is remove the 0 and 3. -Anon
To 83.135.160.19: TeX is not in public domain, it is copyrighted by Knuth. Here is the licence notice:
% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are reserved. % Copying of this file is authorized only if (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if % (2) you make absolutely no changes to your copy. (The WEB system provides % for alterations via an auxiliary file; the master file should stay intact.) % See Appendix H of the WEB manual for hints on how to install this program. % And see Appendix A of the TRIP manual for details about how to validate it. % TeX is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society. % METAFONT is a trademark of Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
-- EJ 10:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I've added TeX to the Wikipedia:Babel project. Feel free to put it in your babelbox! -- Smjg 12:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems like fpTeX no longer exists. After some poking about, I found that the author has changed his project to XemTeX, rolling Xemacs and TeX into one package. But I am unsure of the status of the project, as it seems to have hopped between various hosts. -- 165.155.128.134 14:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I think this section should be included into the lead; it is relatively short, very introductive, and we have too many sections in the article already IMHO. Opinion ? Schutz 22:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed the comparison to the Swedish sj sound. This phoneme is pronounced in an astonishing variety of different ways; formally, it has many allophones, including the unique [ɧ], which is itself realised in many ways, as well as [ʂ], [ɕ] and occasionally [χ], but rarely [x]. See Swedish language for more information. - Ahruman 11:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The article says: A homage to Caltech, where Knuth received his doctorate, the name TeX is intended to be pronounced "tekh". I have read many of Knuth's writings about Tex, as well as quite a few interviews cited in reference on his Wikipedia page, but I have not managed so far to find a reference to this homage. Quite the opposite, actually: in the book Digital Typography, p. 635, Knuth admits that he pronounced the name as teks for the first month or two ! Does someone know of any source for this ? If we do not find anything, I'll remove the first page of this sentence (and merge the section into the lead, as proposed above). Schutz 00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking of removing the examples given for ConTeXt. Firstly, It looks to me like ConTeXt is not that well known; at least, it is far behind LaTeX in terms of notoriety. In addition, it looks to me like the examples given do not add much to the article, especially given the previous LaTeX example. But it may be only a bias on my side, so I prefer to check before removing anything. Of course, the mention of ConTeXt in the "Derived Works" section would stay, with the wikilink. Schutz 00:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone provide pointers to back up this statement?
I'm aware that some complaints have been lodged against specific aspects of Computer Modern, but I personally find CM very pleasant and easy to read. What, specifically, is wrong with it from a typographical standpoint? Who (by name) has criticized it, and why?
Or, rather, is it the Metafont program itself that has been "harshly criticized"?
If I knew the answers I would supply them. Alas, I only have the questions. -- User:12.65.192.77
The article says that TeX "is free and is popular in academia..." It links to Free Software, but the usage of the word makes it sound like free as in no cost. Which Free does it mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.164.2 ( talk • contribs)
The last reference, to "Beebe, p. 14" is ridiculous. What is "Beebe"? I'll remove this as well as the sentence it supports (about dollar signs) unless there's an outcry -- Storkk 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
If I understand the teTeX home page correctly, it is going to be replaced with TeX live. Can anyone add this to the article? -- Felix Wiemann 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"Description of a third-party preprocessor which has nothing to do with the TeX macro language"?
TeX provides an unusual macro language; the definition of a macro not only includes a list of commands but also the syntax of the call. Macros are completely integrated with a full-scale interpreted compile-time language that also guides processing.
TeX's macro level of operation is lexical, and it is implemented by the TeXpp [1], the TeX preprocessor. The preprocessor reads several files, understands and evaluates macro definitions, and later the invocations are replaced by the body of the macro.
Comparing with most widely used lexical preprocessor like Cpp, TeXpp is a kind of hibrid (of lexical and syntactic), and differs slightly, as the body of a macro gets tokenized at definition time, that is, it is not completely raw text. Except from a few very special cases, this gives the same behaviour.
The TeX macro language has been successfully used to extend TeX to, for instance, LaTeX and BibTex [2].
TeX provides (...) guides processing. -- same text
TeX's macro level of operation is lexical, but it is a built-in facility of TeX, that make use of syntax interpretation. Comparing with most widely used lexical preprocessor like Cpp, it differs slightly, as the body of a macro gets tokenized at definition time, that is, it is not completely raw text. Except from a few very special cases, this gives the same behaviour. -- new text
The TeX macro language has been successfully (...). -- same text
(add example) -- new
Need some sample on TeX#TeX_macro_language. Please, if you agreee, copy/adapt for article. Adapeted from Brabrand (1998):
TEX macros are defined by the \def construct, or similar variants, followed by the name of the macro preceeded by a backslash. Hereafter follows a sequence of tokens and arguments. The arguments are identified by ciphers preceeded by the token "#", bounding the number of arguments by nine. Finally comes the body of the macro, which is taken to be whatever is written between two balancing brackets. Of course, the body can also contain corresponding argument usages, the treating of which is deferred to invocation-time, as with the Cpp macros, yielding dynamic macro scope.
\def \vector #1[#2..#3]{ $({#1}_{#2},\ldots,{#1}_{#3})$ } \vector x'[0..n-1] ! $({x'}_{0},nldots,{x'}_{n-1})$
This TeXmacro example (\vector
) shows a definition of a macro called
vector plus an invocation. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Krauss (
talk •
contribs)
16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
You may have noticed that I added a new section to the article about the use of TeX. I think this is an important part of the article: we don't want to talk only about the technical details, but also say who is using the system and for what, and it'd be nice if others have good references to add here.
Which brings me to a question about the lead, where it is written: "[TeX] is popular in academia, especially in the mathematics, physics, computer science, political science, and engineering communities". Mathematics, physics, CS and engineering are pretty much covered by the references I have added in the new section (as well as "law", which is cited by Knuth). Does anyone have any reference about political science or should I remove this claim ? One editor or even one book in the field would be good enough. Schutz 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the example about "Mathematical text typeset using TeX and the AMS Euler font." in "Mathematical spacing" is not mathematically correct.
Don't you think the article should mention that wikipedia itself uses tex as the language of math formulas? 217.132.32.87 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Monotype previously linked to Monotyping. It now goes to Monotype Corporation. The history section refers to a typesetting process from the 19th century whereas the Monotyping article refers to a printing method invented in the 18th century (for making unique prints). Miskimo 11:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The link to the "Plain TeX Quick Reference (PDF)" gives a 404. I found a file with the same name on Wikipedia under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tex-refcard-letter.pdf (of the Reference card article). I don't know if it's the same file and if I should change the link to point to that file. I'll leave it up to someone else to fix it, I guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.180.33.91 ( talk) 09:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
TEX. Let me try this.-- Śiva 16:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
(2007-05-03) Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was rsync. Gronky 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article have the lemma ΤΕΧ (not TEX) rather than TeX? 80.136.220.234 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Two {{fact}} tags have been removed from this article. I recommend re-adding them. These tags are not a criticism or a blemish. The article will be better when good citations are eventually found. Not only do citations act as evidence, they also act as a reference for someone who wants to investigate the situation and replace the current wording with something more precise. Gronky 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The unsourced statements could be moved here to the Talk page until citations are found. Those interested could also chase down the editor who added the statements, especially if the have an external email address. Lentower 18:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a false assert that the `example of TeX' section is a how-to. It just shows what TeX a source file should contain, which is informative. The section is written pretending it is a how-to to make things more lively. This is a style matter, not a content matter. 23:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Michaël
Stallman's opinion on the license isn't relevant to the article and furthermore it doesn't even say in the article what it is he thinks. 24.58.154.67 ( talk) 02:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
"considered by most"
The reference provided is a description of how physics and mathematics academics can go about using TeX. That's great and well, but it certainly doesn't provide evidence that "most" of any population accepts the format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.197.200 ( talk) 01:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know where to get the 3.1415926 revision of TeX? In theory it was released a week ago, but it does not seem to be available for download on the master CTAN archive. -- EJ ( talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the quadratic formula is rather than just ? Stephen Shaw ( talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I decided to remove the sentence from the introduction criticizing TeX. I don't think TeX is above criticism, but the reference given was not solid: someones personal opinion, and not even a very coherent personal opinion at that (how on earth is "\degr" a difficult macro for the symbol for degrees? Maybe if you are an astronomer it is (no it isn't, but...), anyway one can redefine "\deg" to be whatever one wants, right?). So if I decide to write a webpage praising TeX I could add a link to it saying how "some users" (yes, some users = at least one user) love it? I think not. 82.139.116.129 ( talk) 10:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have corrected a few minor points with reference to Pascal, and I'll expand some detail for those interested.
TeX is written in DEC PDP-10 Pascal. I haven't seen this quoted anywhere, it was determined by comparing the source against net documents covering various compilers. See:
http://pdp-10.trailing-edge.com/decuslib10-07/01/43,50433/pascal.doc.html
It uses several PDP-10 Pascal extensions, including "others:" clause on cases, the break() and breakin() procedures, extended versions of reset() and rewrite(), the close() procedure, access to the DEC TTY: pseudodevice by name, a DEC specific understanding of character file eof and eoln sequencing, and equivalence of text to packed file of character.
Please see:
http://www.standardpascal.org/standards.html
For more details on what exactly constitutes Pascal across any given time period.
Knuth did a good job of isolating such dependencies for the most part, the I/O handling is localized to a few short routines. However, it is unhelpful to stick to the odd, and untrue zealotry that TeX is written in some kind of ideal Pascal. I had to do a fair amount of research to get TeX to compile on a standard compiler because asking about the source language of TeX starts religious fights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.201.77 ( talk) 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Different Pascals have slightly different conventions, and the present program expresses TeX in terms of the Pascal that was available to the author in 1982. Constructions that apply to this particular compiler, which we shall call Pascal-H, should help the reader see how to make an appropriate interface for other systems if necessary. (Pascal-H is Charles Hedrick's modification of a compiler for the DECsystem-10 that was originally developed at the University of Hamburg; cf. SOFTWARE—Practice & Experience 6 (1976), 29–42. The TeX program below is intended to be adaptable, without extensive changes, to most other versions of Pascal, so it does not fully use the admirable features of Pascal-H. Indeed, a conscious effort has been made here to avoid using several idiosyncratic features of standard Pascal itself, so that most of the code can be translated mechanically into other high-level languages. For example, the `
with
' and `new
' features are not used, nor are pointer types, set types, or enumerated scalar types; there are no `var
' parameters, except in the case of files; there are no tag fields on variant records; there are no assignmentsreal:=integer
; no procedures are declared local to other procedures.) tex.web, lines 192–211
I saw the reference. Pascal-h is difficult or impossible to find online references for (if you know of one, I'd like to see it). In any case, the only non-standard references (to Pascal) I found in the 3.1415926 TeX code were identical to the PDP-10 Pascal language (whose manual I posted a link for above). So Pascal-h is historically interesting, but apparently immaterial to the non-standard constructs in the TeX source code itself. Knuth may not have been aware (or cared) what the differences were between Pascal-h and DEC PDP-10 Pascal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.201.77 ( talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
A recent move to eliminate the oBnoXiOuS cApItaliSaTiON that Tex is stuck with was just reverted on the grounds that WP:COMMONNAME overrules MOS:TM. I don't agree with this change: Donald Knuth shouldn't get a bye here where random companies don't, even if he is my homeboy. How commonly the oBnoXiOuS cApItaliSaTiON is used isn't the point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, it is unclear why exactly
MOS:TM applies in this case. Although many sources say that TeX is a trademark of the AMS, this article itself denies the claim, and I have seen no sources saying that LaTeX is a trademark. This is not a question of obnoxious or attention-grabbing moves by some company; the actual names of the software are themselves capitalized in that way. Consider
BASIC,
troff,
grep, etc.
The policy is to follow the common usage, and you can look at what prominent publications say (in this case, finding no mention of (La)TeX in the New York Times or the Washington Post, one is forced to look at
Linux Journal and the like, which do follow the official capitalization. :-)
shreevatsa (
talk)
15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The following sentence is not exact:
The name TeX is intended by its developer to be pronounced /ˈtɛx/, with the final consonant of loch or Bach.
Loch comes from the Gaelic and, normally, its ch does not have the same pronunciation as the ch in Bach, but sounds more like the letter j in Spanish. Another example should be used (Ache, archetype, and so on). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nounec ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is
transcluded from
Talk:TeX/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
In order to uphold the quality of
Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the
GA criteria as part of the
GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of
September 14,
2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from
WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at
WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at
WP:GAR.
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1,080,000 results for Google Search "text/x-tex"
versus
142,000 results for Google Search "application/x-tex"
-- Keith111 ( talk) 00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 01:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
In the given TeX example, the output produced by the quantity between the dollar signs -- which is well known as the roots of a quadratic equation -- is called a "formula". The question is, whether this is a correct use of the word "formula" in the context of mathematics. In the Wikipedia article of the same name, I find the following statement:
And so the crux is, whether the usage is correct -- I would tend to vote for the word "expression" here. After all, TeX has very much to do with maths! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.253.203 ( talk) 08:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The name TeX is intended by its developer to be pronounced /ˈtɛx/, with the final consonant of loch or Bach
Do you guys actually know how Bach is pronounced in German? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.214.129 ( talk) 17:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
No part of the article is dedicated to comparing and contrasting it to other word processors. I understand that it uses a markup language and requires a separate editor program for WYSIWYG editing, but no direct comparisons as far as feature set were made, other than noting its excellent support for mathematical equations. 67.142.130.18 ( talk) 02:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The link to "Plain TeX Quick Reference (PDF)" is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.129.70 ( talk) 21:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Look at the Text Executive Programming Language Wikipedia article, it has a Tex disambiguation reference page pointer.
I think this article needs one too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tex_%28disambiguation%29
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_Executive_Programming_Language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.208.10 ( talk) 15:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Done
The first line says: TeX (pronounced /ˈtɛx/, as in Greek, often /ˈtɛk/ in English
Why should there be two pronounciations, when they are writen alike in IPA: /ˈtɛx/? -
DePiep (
talk)
07:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
What does "Greek" or "English" pronunciation mean? If anything, it would make people unfamiliar with IPA think it rhymes with "Greek". And reading X (ks) as Χ (kh) is "Greek", not the other way round. -- MarkSteward ( talk) 12:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
TeX. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on TeX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The pronunciation help is wrong. please cf. http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/ipa/full/ipachart_cons_pulm_fbmp3.html TeX derives from Greek technê and that is NOT pronounced with an IPA [x] or ['chi'] but with the fortis palatal fricative - IPA ["c with a diacritical ' at its bottom"]. So TeX is not pronounced like 'loch' or GER 'Bach' but like GER 'mich' or GER 'Technik'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.132.57.113 ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 July 2004
Just to be clear here, are we talking about the Voiceless uvular fricative or the Voiceless velar fricative? -- 213.112.81.180 15:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
This is such a matter of controversy that some wikipedian whose native language includes the right 'ch' sound should record the correct pronunciation and put it on this page. Zaha 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Would it be at all worthwhile to include a note to the effect that it's not pronounced like the first syllable of Texas, or would that just be redundant? Hellbus ( talk) 04:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I noticed on de:Diskussion:TeX that one user asked the question in a letter to Knuth himself some time ago, and got the folowing reply:
I do not get angry when people pronounce TeX in their favorite way...and in Germany many use a soft ch because the χ follows the vowel e, not the harder ch that follows the vowel a. In Russia, 'tex' is a very common word, pronounced 'tyekh'. But I believe the most proper pronunciation is heard in Greece, where you have the harsher ch of ach and Loch.
Cordially don knuth (ka NOOTH)
P.S. I admire the English Wikipedia, but am concerned that articles are a bit too easy for me to change.
So, this makes it clear that the intended target pronunciation is indeed [tεx] rather than [tεç]. — EJ ( talk) 10:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
What do people think of adding a picture that illustrates the "spelling" of TeX, similar to the one at the beginning of the LaTeX article? – Matt 09:56, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Please avoid using the TeX logo when you cannot print it properly as in HTML. If you want to have the logo, upload a bitmap. – Torsten Bronger 12:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
{{TeX}}
template and that looks really unreadable on screen and the {{TeX-logo}}
template that does not follow
Knuth’s recommendations to the point but is simpler and readable on screen, could we replace TeX with either one? And,
BTW, please let me know which version you prefer. --
Yecril (
talk)
20:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)I am not too convinced about the section TeX#TeX examples. Do we really want to write this section as a tutorial, with the "hello" code, the details of commands to type to compile the source, etc ? I prefer the way the MetaPost article does it: provide one relatively complex source code, along with the result it produces when compiled. Opinions? -- Schutz 01:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Anyone notice that in the sample image, it displays the result of a definite integral as an indefinite integral? It's a bit picky but all that needs to be done is remove the 0 and 3. -Anon
To 83.135.160.19: TeX is not in public domain, it is copyrighted by Knuth. Here is the licence notice:
% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are reserved. % Copying of this file is authorized only if (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if % (2) you make absolutely no changes to your copy. (The WEB system provides % for alterations via an auxiliary file; the master file should stay intact.) % See Appendix H of the WEB manual for hints on how to install this program. % And see Appendix A of the TRIP manual for details about how to validate it. % TeX is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society. % METAFONT is a trademark of Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
-- EJ 10:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I've added TeX to the Wikipedia:Babel project. Feel free to put it in your babelbox! -- Smjg 12:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems like fpTeX no longer exists. After some poking about, I found that the author has changed his project to XemTeX, rolling Xemacs and TeX into one package. But I am unsure of the status of the project, as it seems to have hopped between various hosts. -- 165.155.128.134 14:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I think this section should be included into the lead; it is relatively short, very introductive, and we have too many sections in the article already IMHO. Opinion ? Schutz 22:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed the comparison to the Swedish sj sound. This phoneme is pronounced in an astonishing variety of different ways; formally, it has many allophones, including the unique [ɧ], which is itself realised in many ways, as well as [ʂ], [ɕ] and occasionally [χ], but rarely [x]. See Swedish language for more information. - Ahruman 11:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The article says: A homage to Caltech, where Knuth received his doctorate, the name TeX is intended to be pronounced "tekh". I have read many of Knuth's writings about Tex, as well as quite a few interviews cited in reference on his Wikipedia page, but I have not managed so far to find a reference to this homage. Quite the opposite, actually: in the book Digital Typography, p. 635, Knuth admits that he pronounced the name as teks for the first month or two ! Does someone know of any source for this ? If we do not find anything, I'll remove the first page of this sentence (and merge the section into the lead, as proposed above). Schutz 00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking of removing the examples given for ConTeXt. Firstly, It looks to me like ConTeXt is not that well known; at least, it is far behind LaTeX in terms of notoriety. In addition, it looks to me like the examples given do not add much to the article, especially given the previous LaTeX example. But it may be only a bias on my side, so I prefer to check before removing anything. Of course, the mention of ConTeXt in the "Derived Works" section would stay, with the wikilink. Schutz 00:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone provide pointers to back up this statement?
I'm aware that some complaints have been lodged against specific aspects of Computer Modern, but I personally find CM very pleasant and easy to read. What, specifically, is wrong with it from a typographical standpoint? Who (by name) has criticized it, and why?
Or, rather, is it the Metafont program itself that has been "harshly criticized"?
If I knew the answers I would supply them. Alas, I only have the questions. -- User:12.65.192.77
The article says that TeX "is free and is popular in academia..." It links to Free Software, but the usage of the word makes it sound like free as in no cost. Which Free does it mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.164.2 ( talk • contribs)
The last reference, to "Beebe, p. 14" is ridiculous. What is "Beebe"? I'll remove this as well as the sentence it supports (about dollar signs) unless there's an outcry -- Storkk 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
If I understand the teTeX home page correctly, it is going to be replaced with TeX live. Can anyone add this to the article? -- Felix Wiemann 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"Description of a third-party preprocessor which has nothing to do with the TeX macro language"?
TeX provides an unusual macro language; the definition of a macro not only includes a list of commands but also the syntax of the call. Macros are completely integrated with a full-scale interpreted compile-time language that also guides processing.
TeX's macro level of operation is lexical, and it is implemented by the TeXpp [1], the TeX preprocessor. The preprocessor reads several files, understands and evaluates macro definitions, and later the invocations are replaced by the body of the macro.
Comparing with most widely used lexical preprocessor like Cpp, TeXpp is a kind of hibrid (of lexical and syntactic), and differs slightly, as the body of a macro gets tokenized at definition time, that is, it is not completely raw text. Except from a few very special cases, this gives the same behaviour.
The TeX macro language has been successfully used to extend TeX to, for instance, LaTeX and BibTex [2].
TeX provides (...) guides processing. -- same text
TeX's macro level of operation is lexical, but it is a built-in facility of TeX, that make use of syntax interpretation. Comparing with most widely used lexical preprocessor like Cpp, it differs slightly, as the body of a macro gets tokenized at definition time, that is, it is not completely raw text. Except from a few very special cases, this gives the same behaviour. -- new text
The TeX macro language has been successfully (...). -- same text
(add example) -- new
Need some sample on TeX#TeX_macro_language. Please, if you agreee, copy/adapt for article. Adapeted from Brabrand (1998):
TEX macros are defined by the \def construct, or similar variants, followed by the name of the macro preceeded by a backslash. Hereafter follows a sequence of tokens and arguments. The arguments are identified by ciphers preceeded by the token "#", bounding the number of arguments by nine. Finally comes the body of the macro, which is taken to be whatever is written between two balancing brackets. Of course, the body can also contain corresponding argument usages, the treating of which is deferred to invocation-time, as with the Cpp macros, yielding dynamic macro scope.
\def \vector #1[#2..#3]{ $({#1}_{#2},\ldots,{#1}_{#3})$ } \vector x'[0..n-1] ! $({x'}_{0},nldots,{x'}_{n-1})$
This TeXmacro example (\vector
) shows a definition of a macro called
vector plus an invocation. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Krauss (
talk •
contribs)
16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
You may have noticed that I added a new section to the article about the use of TeX. I think this is an important part of the article: we don't want to talk only about the technical details, but also say who is using the system and for what, and it'd be nice if others have good references to add here.
Which brings me to a question about the lead, where it is written: "[TeX] is popular in academia, especially in the mathematics, physics, computer science, political science, and engineering communities". Mathematics, physics, CS and engineering are pretty much covered by the references I have added in the new section (as well as "law", which is cited by Knuth). Does anyone have any reference about political science or should I remove this claim ? One editor or even one book in the field would be good enough. Schutz 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the example about "Mathematical text typeset using TeX and the AMS Euler font." in "Mathematical spacing" is not mathematically correct.
Don't you think the article should mention that wikipedia itself uses tex as the language of math formulas? 217.132.32.87 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Monotype previously linked to Monotyping. It now goes to Monotype Corporation. The history section refers to a typesetting process from the 19th century whereas the Monotyping article refers to a printing method invented in the 18th century (for making unique prints). Miskimo 11:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The link to the "Plain TeX Quick Reference (PDF)" gives a 404. I found a file with the same name on Wikipedia under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tex-refcard-letter.pdf (of the Reference card article). I don't know if it's the same file and if I should change the link to point to that file. I'll leave it up to someone else to fix it, I guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.180.33.91 ( talk) 09:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
TEX. Let me try this.-- Śiva 16:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
(2007-05-03) Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was rsync. Gronky 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article have the lemma ΤΕΧ (not TEX) rather than TeX? 80.136.220.234 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Two {{fact}} tags have been removed from this article. I recommend re-adding them. These tags are not a criticism or a blemish. The article will be better when good citations are eventually found. Not only do citations act as evidence, they also act as a reference for someone who wants to investigate the situation and replace the current wording with something more precise. Gronky 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The unsourced statements could be moved here to the Talk page until citations are found. Those interested could also chase down the editor who added the statements, especially if the have an external email address. Lentower 18:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a false assert that the `example of TeX' section is a how-to. It just shows what TeX a source file should contain, which is informative. The section is written pretending it is a how-to to make things more lively. This is a style matter, not a content matter. 23:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Michaël
Stallman's opinion on the license isn't relevant to the article and furthermore it doesn't even say in the article what it is he thinks. 24.58.154.67 ( talk) 02:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
"considered by most"
The reference provided is a description of how physics and mathematics academics can go about using TeX. That's great and well, but it certainly doesn't provide evidence that "most" of any population accepts the format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.197.200 ( talk) 01:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know where to get the 3.1415926 revision of TeX? In theory it was released a week ago, but it does not seem to be available for download on the master CTAN archive. -- EJ ( talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the quadratic formula is rather than just ? Stephen Shaw ( talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I decided to remove the sentence from the introduction criticizing TeX. I don't think TeX is above criticism, but the reference given was not solid: someones personal opinion, and not even a very coherent personal opinion at that (how on earth is "\degr" a difficult macro for the symbol for degrees? Maybe if you are an astronomer it is (no it isn't, but...), anyway one can redefine "\deg" to be whatever one wants, right?). So if I decide to write a webpage praising TeX I could add a link to it saying how "some users" (yes, some users = at least one user) love it? I think not. 82.139.116.129 ( talk) 10:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have corrected a few minor points with reference to Pascal, and I'll expand some detail for those interested.
TeX is written in DEC PDP-10 Pascal. I haven't seen this quoted anywhere, it was determined by comparing the source against net documents covering various compilers. See:
http://pdp-10.trailing-edge.com/decuslib10-07/01/43,50433/pascal.doc.html
It uses several PDP-10 Pascal extensions, including "others:" clause on cases, the break() and breakin() procedures, extended versions of reset() and rewrite(), the close() procedure, access to the DEC TTY: pseudodevice by name, a DEC specific understanding of character file eof and eoln sequencing, and equivalence of text to packed file of character.
Please see:
http://www.standardpascal.org/standards.html
For more details on what exactly constitutes Pascal across any given time period.
Knuth did a good job of isolating such dependencies for the most part, the I/O handling is localized to a few short routines. However, it is unhelpful to stick to the odd, and untrue zealotry that TeX is written in some kind of ideal Pascal. I had to do a fair amount of research to get TeX to compile on a standard compiler because asking about the source language of TeX starts religious fights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.201.77 ( talk) 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Different Pascals have slightly different conventions, and the present program expresses TeX in terms of the Pascal that was available to the author in 1982. Constructions that apply to this particular compiler, which we shall call Pascal-H, should help the reader see how to make an appropriate interface for other systems if necessary. (Pascal-H is Charles Hedrick's modification of a compiler for the DECsystem-10 that was originally developed at the University of Hamburg; cf. SOFTWARE—Practice & Experience 6 (1976), 29–42. The TeX program below is intended to be adaptable, without extensive changes, to most other versions of Pascal, so it does not fully use the admirable features of Pascal-H. Indeed, a conscious effort has been made here to avoid using several idiosyncratic features of standard Pascal itself, so that most of the code can be translated mechanically into other high-level languages. For example, the `
with
' and `new
' features are not used, nor are pointer types, set types, or enumerated scalar types; there are no `var
' parameters, except in the case of files; there are no tag fields on variant records; there are no assignmentsreal:=integer
; no procedures are declared local to other procedures.) tex.web, lines 192–211
I saw the reference. Pascal-h is difficult or impossible to find online references for (if you know of one, I'd like to see it). In any case, the only non-standard references (to Pascal) I found in the 3.1415926 TeX code were identical to the PDP-10 Pascal language (whose manual I posted a link for above). So Pascal-h is historically interesting, but apparently immaterial to the non-standard constructs in the TeX source code itself. Knuth may not have been aware (or cared) what the differences were between Pascal-h and DEC PDP-10 Pascal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.201.77 ( talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
A recent move to eliminate the oBnoXiOuS cApItaliSaTiON that Tex is stuck with was just reverted on the grounds that WP:COMMONNAME overrules MOS:TM. I don't agree with this change: Donald Knuth shouldn't get a bye here where random companies don't, even if he is my homeboy. How commonly the oBnoXiOuS cApItaliSaTiON is used isn't the point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, it is unclear why exactly
MOS:TM applies in this case. Although many sources say that TeX is a trademark of the AMS, this article itself denies the claim, and I have seen no sources saying that LaTeX is a trademark. This is not a question of obnoxious or attention-grabbing moves by some company; the actual names of the software are themselves capitalized in that way. Consider
BASIC,
troff,
grep, etc.
The policy is to follow the common usage, and you can look at what prominent publications say (in this case, finding no mention of (La)TeX in the New York Times or the Washington Post, one is forced to look at
Linux Journal and the like, which do follow the official capitalization. :-)
shreevatsa (
talk)
15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The following sentence is not exact:
The name TeX is intended by its developer to be pronounced /ˈtɛx/, with the final consonant of loch or Bach.
Loch comes from the Gaelic and, normally, its ch does not have the same pronunciation as the ch in Bach, but sounds more like the letter j in Spanish. Another example should be used (Ache, archetype, and so on). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nounec ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is
transcluded from
Talk:TeX/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
In order to uphold the quality of
Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the
GA criteria as part of the
GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of
September 14,
2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from
WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at
WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at
WP:GAR.
-- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1,080,000 results for Google Search "text/x-tex"
versus
142,000 results for Google Search "application/x-tex"
-- Keith111 ( talk) 00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 01:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
In the given TeX example, the output produced by the quantity between the dollar signs -- which is well known as the roots of a quadratic equation -- is called a "formula". The question is, whether this is a correct use of the word "formula" in the context of mathematics. In the Wikipedia article of the same name, I find the following statement:
And so the crux is, whether the usage is correct -- I would tend to vote for the word "expression" here. After all, TeX has very much to do with maths! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.253.203 ( talk) 08:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The name TeX is intended by its developer to be pronounced /ˈtɛx/, with the final consonant of loch or Bach
Do you guys actually know how Bach is pronounced in German? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.214.129 ( talk) 17:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
No part of the article is dedicated to comparing and contrasting it to other word processors. I understand that it uses a markup language and requires a separate editor program for WYSIWYG editing, but no direct comparisons as far as feature set were made, other than noting its excellent support for mathematical equations. 67.142.130.18 ( talk) 02:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The link to "Plain TeX Quick Reference (PDF)" is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.129.70 ( talk) 21:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Look at the Text Executive Programming Language Wikipedia article, it has a Tex disambiguation reference page pointer.
I think this article needs one too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tex_%28disambiguation%29
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_Executive_Programming_Language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.208.10 ( talk) 15:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Done
The first line says: TeX (pronounced /ˈtɛx/, as in Greek, often /ˈtɛk/ in English
Why should there be two pronounciations, when they are writen alike in IPA: /ˈtɛx/? -
DePiep (
talk)
07:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
What does "Greek" or "English" pronunciation mean? If anything, it would make people unfamiliar with IPA think it rhymes with "Greek". And reading X (ks) as Χ (kh) is "Greek", not the other way round. -- MarkSteward ( talk) 12:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
TeX. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on TeX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)