Paul A. Rubin wrote:
> Neal Becker wrote:
>> Paul A. Rubin wrote:
>>
>>> Neal Becker wrote:
In ams article, if I don't put a \section, equations are numbered as
0.1,
0.2, etc. What can I do about that?
>>> The layout file is adding that (as well as the same convention for
>>>
Neal Becker wrote:
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
Neal Becker wrote:
In ams article, if I don't put a \section, equations are numbered as 0.1,
0.2, etc. What can I do about that?
The layout file is adding that (as well as the same convention for
numbering figures) to the preamble. There's a somewhat
Paul A. Rubin wrote:
> Neal Becker wrote:
>> In ams article, if I don't put a \section, equations are numbered as 0.1,
>> 0.2, etc. What can I do about that?
>>
>
> The layout file is adding that (as well as the same convention for
> numbering figures) to the preamble. There's a somewhat unhel
Neal Becker wrote:
In ams article, if I don't put a \section, equations are numbered as 0.1,
0.2, etc. What can I do about that?
The layout file is adding that (as well as the same convention for
numbering figures) to the preamble. There's a somewhat unhelpful
comment in the layout file t
In ams article, if I don't put a \section, equations are numbered as 0.1,
0.2, etc. What can I do about that?
