# Can one latexify formulae on Signal Processing meta?

Yesterday, I did some edit to a post, and by mistake retyped formulae with a latex syntax. Signal Processing Meta does not allow latexified math formula yet, see for instance Can we have MathJax enabled in Meta?. So I wondered if I should uncorrect the corrections, or leave them texified, since:

• I generally am more confident in the interpretation when I read latex formulae,
• the day will come, and we will be ready.

Would you consider writing in latex syntax on Meta an "OK" practice?

• Happily, this question is no longer relevant as MathJax has just been enabled natively! Yay! Nov 21 '16 at 15:26

I would propose using the same syntax as we would in DSP, but at the same time, hyper-link to something like Quicklatex.

For example $y = \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} x_i \cdot w_i$.

Or even:

$y = \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} x_i \cdot w_i$ (i.e. this)

When (and if) the time comes, then the text between the "$" signs could start be rendering properly but until then, a person who would like to see through the "clutter" still gets the rendering option. • More work possibly, depending on external ressources, but a quite interesting option Nov 19 '16 at 17:47 • I don't like how the link goes to a new page with just that equation, and such links may get old too. Better use some browser extension like Math Anywhere for Chrome chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/math-anywhere/… Nov 20 '16 at 10:03 • That's great, although browser specific. Firefox doesn't seem to have an equivalent (?). And less work as you now don't have to copy paste to quicklatex or other service as pointed out by @LaurentDuval earlier. – A_A Nov 20 '16 at 10:41 • I added an answer with a script you can use in Firefox Nov 21 '16 at 9:31 I tend to be a "native speaker" of most \LaTeX formulae, so I'm OK either way. Also, as a minimum-energy-solution adherent, I'd tend to leave things as they are. New posts should be done as per the poster's ability and intent: if they're more comfortable and/or the point is made better using MathJax code, then do it that way; if they're more comfortable just referencing the particular question on the main site or it's not really needed for clarity, then do it that way. • I suspect this is not only about "things as they are". At the present time, DSP Meta does not allow MathJax. So to formulate a question, I may alter my expression, or formulate it in a less precise or generic way. Should one encourage OP to post "as if" they were talking to latex literates? Nov 18 '16 at 18:35 Here is a Greasemonkey script that will display Latex formulas in DSP Meta using MathJax. You also get the preview in the editor, but it is quite slow. I can't get the script to run in Chrome, but it works in Firefox. For Chrome there is the extension Math Anywhere. ### Firefox instructions First install the Greasemonkey extension, then copy-paste the script to a text file and save it locally to MathJaxForDSPMeta.user.js. Drag'n'drop the script file to a new page in Firefox. Greasemonkey will prompt to install the script. ### Script // ==UserScript== // @name MathJax for meta.dsp.stackexchange.com // @namespace Olli Niemitalo // @description Insert MathJax into meta.dsp.stackexchange.com // @include *meta.dsp.stackexchange.com/* // @require //cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js?config=TeX-AMS_HTML-full // @require /js/mathjax-editing.en.js // @grant none // ==/UserScript== var script = document.createElement('script'); script.type = "text/x-mathjax-config"; script.text = 'MathJax.Hub.Config({"HTML-CSS": { preferredFont: "TeX", availableFonts: ["STIX","TeX"], linebreaks: { automatic:true }, EqnChunk: (MathJax.Hub.Browser.isMobile ? 10 : 50) },tex2jax: { inlineMath: [ ["$", "\$"], ["\\$","\$/extract_itex]"] ], displayMath: [ ["",""], ["\\[", "\$"] ], processEscapes: true, ignoreClass: "tex2jax_ignore|dno" },TeX: {  noUndefined: { attributes: { mathcolor: "red", mathbackground: "#FFEEEE", mathsize: "90%" } }, Macros: { href: "{}" } }, messageStyle: "none"});';