Frequently Asked Question List for TeX

`\[`

…`\]`

in place of `$$`

… `$$`

?
LaTeX defines inline- and display-maths commands, apparently duplicating the TeX primitive maths sequences which surround maths commands with single (or pairs of) dollar signs.

In fact, LaTeX’s inline maths grouping,
`\( ... \)`

, has (almost) exactly the same effect as the
TeX primitive version `$ ... $`

. (The exception:
the LaTeX version checks to ensure you don’t put `\(`

and
`\)`

the wrong way round; this does occasionally detect errors….)

Since this is the case, one often finds LaTeX users, who have some
experience of using Plain TeX, merely assuming that LaTeX’s
display maths grouping `\[ ... \]`

may be replaced by
the TeX primitive display maths `$$ ... $$`

.

Unfortunately, the assumption is wrong: some LaTeX code needs to
patch display maths, it can only do so by patching `\[`

and `\]`

(or their equivalents). Most obviously, the class option `fleqn`

simply does not work for equations coded using
`$$ ... $$`

, whether you’re using the standard classes
alone, or using package `amsmath`

. Also, the `\[`

and
`\]`

construct has code for rationalising vertical spacing in some
extreme cases; that code is not provided `$$ ... $$`

, so if
you use the Plain TeX version, you may occasionally observe
inconsistent vertical spacing. Similar behaviour can bite if you are
writing a *proof*; placing the “QED symbol” doesn’t work
if it is in `$$`

-displayed maths.

There are more subtle effects (especially with package
`amsmath`

), and the simple rule is “use
`\[ ... \]`

(at least) whenever displayed maths is
needed in LaTeX”.

(Note that the sequence `\[ ... \]`

is duplicated by
the `displaymath`

environment, which can be said to “look
nicer”, and actually *describes* what’s being done.)

FAQ ID: Q-dolldoll