Talk:Arg max

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematics Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.

Mathematics rating:

Stub Class

Low Priority

Field: Basics

Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Click to show/hide comments.
Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article.
Geometry guy 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to LaTeX style guides are needed, as I doubt this is the only such Wikipedia entry with LaTeX discussion.

[edit] LaTeX

The LaTeX in this article needs to be improved (as noted in the second section of the article itself). Currently it seems that the MediaWiki software doesn't support enough LaTeX or TeX to be able to improve it, though. The TeX way doesn't work:

\mathop{\rm argmax}\limits_x f(x)

Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed;

check for correct installation of latex, dvips, gs, and convert): \mathop{\rm argmax}\limits_x f(x)

The LaTeX solution given in the article doesn't work, either:

\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_x f(x)

Failed to parse (unknown function\operatornamewithlimits): \operatornamewithlimits{argmax}_x f(x)

—Bkell (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the space between arg and max is undesirable. I'd just leave "centering below argmax rather than just max" as motivation, but with two variants in the definition, one with space and one without. Furthermore using \operatornamewithlimits seems inferior to \DeclareMathOperator. I'm voting for only using that. 128.208.3.75 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote for deleting the "centering below max" paragraph, because it is mathmatically plainly nonsense. This implies arg(max_x f(x)), and in that case the arg function is undefined. Furthermore wasn't that the default behavior of \arg\max_x? So no need for this, we're not explaining how to use \newcommand on this page!! 128.208.3.75 03:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)