Why are MathJax images not displaying on my webpage?

[Studiot]

Edit

I think OE is working it just gives an error message because there is not recipient.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

ah yes, one sec

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

for those having odd/serious mathjax problems run this script and then click the email results button
https://www.physicsforums.com/mathjax/mjp.html

ok you can submit now

 

[Studiot]

Yes boss done.

 

[Borek]

Sometimes there is not much to report...

And when I have problems, it always looks identical - 15 seconds waiting for downloads, I guess that means timeout.

 

[Borek]

No, looks like it can get different - now LaTeX was processed, but Opera still waits for servers.

I have three reasons to use Opera - first, I have zillions of usernames and passwords stored in Opera configuration files. Second, I paid to register Opera in 2004, when it was ad-sponsored. Third - nobody uses Opera, so it is rarely (if ever) targeted by hackers. Unfortunately lately using Opera to access PF is becoming a PITA (it works OK on other sites I visit, but I spend most of the time at PF), so I may have to think it over again

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

No, looks like it can get different - now LaTeX was processed, but Opera still waits for servers.

Are the results in the image relatively constant?

 

[Borek]

Usual pattern looks more like this.

(And when I want to show this 15 sec timeout everything works perfectly, why should it not?)

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Usual pattern looks more like this.

(And when I want to show this 15 sec timeout everything works perfectly, why should it not?)

I gtg for now. Keep posting interesting results and I will compile them and send them to the devs later today. thanks!

 

[Borek]

OK, that's the timeout. Note that on the first image it shows timeline, but Opera still waits for mathjax server.

 

[vela]

The devs are aware of this problem and say an update will be released in the next week that should resolve it.

You can fix it now by using TeX-AMS_HTML instead of TeX-AMS-MML_HTMLorMML.

The main reason why that idea bothers me a little is that $$math$$ has the same effect as
math
in a LaTeX document, i.e. it has the same effect as tex tags here.

Uhh...I don't know why MathJax turns that into an image. Click quote to see what I typed.

You could also change this behavior Fredrik saw by setting processEnvironments to false in the tex2jax parameters. On the other hand, perhaps you'd prefer MathJax, like TeX, to process anything between \begin and \end as math without needing to type in delimiters.

 

[Redbelly98]

Can we make it so clicking the [PLAIN]https://www.physicsforums.com/products/latexreference/images/Icon3.gif icon inserts itex tags instead of tex? I'm finding a lot of new members using tex for LaTeX code that is supposed to be inline with their text, and it is breaking up expressions into multiple lines.

Also, I have updated the LaTeX stickied thread in Forum Feedback.

 

[Fredrik]

Can we make it so clicking the [PLAIN]https://www.physicsforums.com/products/latexreference/images/Icon3.gif icon inserts itex tags instead of tex? I'm finding a lot of new members using tex for LaTeX code that is supposed to be inline with their text, and it is breaking up expressions into multiple lines.

I never use that button, but I would guess that it's both possible and preferable to replace it with two buttons, one for itex and one for tex.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I never use that button, but I would guess that it's both possible and preferable to replace it with two buttons, one for itex and one for tex.

for the meantime I switched it to itex

 

[Redbelly98]

Thanks Greg!

I don't know if that is the root of the problem, but we'll see if we stop getting posts from new members like this:

Homework Statement

Three sinusoidal waves of the same frequency travel along a string in the positive direction of an x axis. Their amplitudes are y1, y1/3.0, and y1/4.0, and their phase constants are 0, $$\pi$$/4.0, and $$\pi$$, respectively. What are (a) the ratio of the amplitude to y1 and (b) the phase constant of the resultant wave?

Even if you're aware of the issue, it's easy to miss that one of the phase constants is $\pi$/4.0

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

1.1a is due out tomorrow afternoon!

 

[chroot]

Greg, is there anything I can do to help?

- Warren

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Greg, is there anything I can do to help?

- Warren

Thanks Warren! I think we're in pretty good shape.

I believe 1.1a is now out. Those who were having problems please report any differences. Remember to clear your browser cache as the JS is cached for two weeks.

 

[vela]

I tried visiting the forums using a limited account in XP, and the access-denied problem no longer occurs.

Any decision on new delimiters?

 

[Studiot]

Greetings from the land of XP limited privilege users:

Whatever you did 10 minutes prior to the timestamp of this post suddenly worked properly.

The yellow error triangle was no longer evident and I thought tex worked again.

However now the issue has returned.

 

[vela]

Try using the developer tools in IE8 (hit F12) to run debugging on the script to see where the problem is cropping up.

 

[Studiot]

Well I tried that and pressed the debug button, and although I haven't a clue as to what I was doing or did -- it worked.

At the moment I can open and close IE8 and not see any errors and Tex works again.

It remains to be seen whether this fix is permanent on restart.

I would be interest in what 'debugging' achieves though.

Thanks a bunch Vela.

 

[vela]

The suggestion wasn't meant to fix the problem but to see where and why the problem came up, so the problem probably just went away on its own for you.

 

[Studiot]

I am aware that the reason it now works is more likely to be some positive change made at the PF source end and that my random pressing buttons was just a coincidence.

Particularly as the fix has survived several reboots.

So thank you whoever finally got it right, I asssume someone is monitoring this thread for feedback.

There have obviously been lots of changes tried out over the last few days. PF speed and response has been highly variable.

It all seems tickety boo now.

 

[Borek]

I can't remember if it was already reported or not. There are difference between engines. In some old threads LaTeX is now not displayed correctly:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=124602

I haven't checked yet why, and I will probably take care about this particular thread, but it is likely that similar problems are present in different threads.

Edit: new engine doesn't like unmatching pairs of \left[ & \right] - if there are both, they are rendered correctly, but just \right] triggers an error.

 

[vela]

In that thread, one of the expressions that doesn't render is:

H_{2}SO_{4}_{(aq)} \rightarrow 2H^{+}_{(aq)} + SO_{4}^{2-}_{(aq)}

I tried to run it through Latex on my computer, and it threw up an error about double subscripts.

 

[Borek]

Good point. I don't know LaTeX well enough, but I guess k_i_j is ambiguous, should it be $k_{ij}$ or $k_{i_j}$?

I haven't checked everything, just skimmed, could be there are more errors.

 

[I like Serena]

Good point. I don't know LaTeX well enough, but I guess k_i_j is ambiguous, should it be $k_{ij}$ or $k_{i_j}$?

I haven't checked everything, just skimmed, could be there are more errors.

There's a third choice: ${k_i}_j$ which I suspect was intended.

 

[Borek]

No matter what was intended, it was wrong, as (aq) should be not a subscript, that's a common mistake. If memory serves me well $H_2SO_{4}(aq)$ is the correct notation (although I am not sure at the moment whether it should or shouldn't be italicized).

 

[I like Serena]

No matter what was intended, it was wrong, as (aq) should be not a subscript, that's a common mistake. If memory serves me well $H_2SO_{4}(aq)$ is the correct notation (although I am not sure at the moment whether it should or shouldn't be italicized).

Hmm, from wikipedia (as far as that is reliable): "An aqueous solution is a solution in which the solvent is water. It is usually shown in chemical equations by appending aq as a subscript to the relevant formula."

Since it is an attribute to the chemical compound, it seems logical to me that it would be a subscript.

Where is the "common mistake"?

 

[Borek]

Wikipedia is wrong and repeats a common mistake that state of aggregation should be written as a subscript. It shouldn't be. There is only one decisive source of information here, http://www.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract05/GreenBook051206_prs.pdf , General Chemistry section, Other symbols and conventions in chemistry (2.10.1), (vi) States of aggregation.

Note: could be there is already a newer version of Green Book, I just copied/pasted what I posted several years ago at CF.

 

[I like Serena]

Wikipedia is wrong and repeats a common mistake that state of aggregation should be written as a subscript. It shouldn't be. There is only one decisive source of information here, http://www.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract05/GreenBook051206_prs.pdf , General Chemistry section, Other symbols and conventions in chemistry (2.10.1), (vi) States of aggregation.

Note: could be there is already a newer version of Green Book, I just copied/pasted what I posted several years ago at CF.

All right. I accept that!

Btw, wikipedia now says: "An aqueous solution is a solution in which the solvent is water. It is usually shown in chemical equations by appending aq to the relevant formula."

(Next time wikipedia will be right!)

 

[dlgoff]

Btw, wikipedia now says: "An aqueous solution is a solution in which the solvent is water. It is usually shown in chemical equations by appending aq to the relevant formula."

(Next time wikipedia will be right!)

PF members in action. Outstanding.

 

[Redbelly98]

The PF Library is still using the old LaTeX processor. Could that be updated to MathJax?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The PF Library is still using the old LaTeX processor. Could that be updated to MathJax?

ah yes thanks for reminding me