# Enable MathJaX syntax

Can the MathJax syntax be turned on for blender.stackexchange.com?

There are many instances where math is used in 3D and in blender. Further there are several instances where existing answers would of benefited from MathJax.

• It's a hefty dependency and I don't think we merit it at least not yet, SE will want to use regular usage for once as opposed to every now and then. – iKlsR Apr 28 '15 at 22:19
• I think there are other things which could be enabled before this.. For instance I think video embedding would get a lot more use than mathjax. – gandalf3 May 11 '15 at 8:45
• I would certainly appreciate it, but I think iKlsR's and gandalf3's points are valid, and we'll probably have to wait at least until after graduation. – user7952 May 19 '15 at 2:40
• I was just about to request this myself, personally I think it would be very useful. I have wished we had MathJax on several occasions. – PGmath Oct 29 '15 at 18:44
• I needed it today for this question so I used it in another stackexchange site and then pasted a screenshot. – uhoh Oct 7 '16 at 4:40

I can turn on MathJax, but since it's essentially irreversible, I want to be sure it will get used. Simply turning the feature on slows every pageview—even those that don't have any math content. It's probably not worthwhile to add a ~20% increase in load times for all 22,600 or so questions if only a handful of them will actually use mathematical notation.

Looking at the examples here and in the linked questions, I think there's a potential readablity gain for posts that explore the mathematical theory behind 3D graphics. But MathJax could be counter-productive when posts are mostly concerned with practical questions, such as achieving particular effects in Blender. In those cases, it's probably just as well to use code rather than mathematical notation.

I'm happy to consider another request for the feature. But in order to do that, I'd like to see many examples of posts where MathJax would clearly make the content better and easier to read. To get good statistics, may I suggest looking at a random sample? If MathJax would make the question better or enable better answers, stick it in an answer to this question. That way we could estimate what percentage of the site could be improved.

• My head is still spinning from trying to read the discussion you've linked to in slows every page. There are several suggestions for ways to avoid the 'global slowdown' but it looks like none are really appropriate and/or viable here? I noticed that in Electronics SE I have to rewrite the MathJax syntax to work there (e.g. $ -> \$) are they using something different/better/faster there? FYI is some additional, recent discussion. – uhoh Jan 5 '17 at 4:04
• For example a method to load on a per question basis has been suggested and mentioned here, but I don't know if this is viable. – uhoh Jan 5 '17 at 4:10
• @uhoh: The reason for using a different delimiter is that \$ causes problems when mixed with dollar prices. I don't know the full backstory there, but I suppose people are more likely to use dollar signs on that site than, say, Math.SE. Again, the path forward is to do a bit of work to demonstrate that MathJax will make a noticeable difference in terms of relative number of posts. – Jon Ericson Jan 5 '17 at 4:18

I've just created an account on here to post this answer, but I think it's worth pointing out that user robjohn from the math stack exchange has developed a bookmarklet that can be used to render MathJax on sites where it is not normally enabled.

This means that users can include the MathJax syntax in their answers and anyone who has the bookmarklet can click on it to render the MathJax. This is the approach used for the math.SE chat site.

I'm not sure quite how useful this would be, since users would presumably also need to include a text or image version of the math for the benefit of people who didn't have the bookmarklet. The advantage of this approach is that it doesn't affect page load times on pages without MathJax.

You can test the bookmarklet out here:

$$\text{Intensity} \propto \frac{1}{\text{distance}^{2}}$$

$$e^{i\pi}=-1$$

$$\int_{S}d\omega = \int_{\partial S}\omega$$