\newcommand{\COR}{\operatorname{cor}}
`
returns the expected result with the pdf output while not being properly defined with the HTML ouput, as illustrated below in the panel of two figures:
Should we then work around the problem by defining our own operators? For instance, consider the following Rmd defined operator of the covariance:
$\operatorname{var}(x)$
which actually returns the expected result in both HTML and pdf outputs:
The following operators defined in the style add-in file "RJournal.sty", defined as such:
`\renewcommand{\P}{% \mathop{\operator@font I\hspace{-1.5pt}P\hspace{.13pt}}}
\newcommand{\E}{% \mathop{\operator@font I\hspace{-1.5pt}E\hspace{.13pt}}}
\newcommand{\VAR}{\operatorname{var}}
\newcommand{\COV}{\operatorname{cov}}
\newcommand{\COR}{\operatorname{cor}} ` returns the expected result with the pdf output while not being properly defined with the HTML ouput, as illustrated below in the panel of two figures:
Should we then work around the problem by defining our own operators? For instance, consider the following Rmd defined operator of the covariance:
$\operatorname{var}(x)$which actually returns the expected result in both HTML and pdf outputs: