Yeah, I've been using Mathpix for almost a year now and this seems practically the same.
Unless they are deliberately avoiding comparison to Mathpix, they are quite unaware of the competition out there :|
Re:Image to LaTeX
by JustCallMeAl on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @08:58PM
(#20350573)
We were aware of Mathpix and we think it’s an awesome tool! We didn’t mention it because there isn’t any publicly available performance results for the model they use, so we weren’t able to compare it to ours in a quantitative way :)
But you could do the performance evaluation of mathpix using your benchmark or?
Re:Image to LaTeX
by JustCallMeAl on Thursday July 04, 2019 @07:28AM
(#20353584)
The evaluation sets involves ~20k samples. They only let you do like 100 for free. Also I’m not sure there’s an API for it for me to do automatically for such a large scale
Off-topic, on Mathpix' site, the image of a Mac contains a battery icon. Didn't know they now make Mac's with battery backups :)
Pretty sure Apple made the same mistake on iMac boxes.
They aren't tedious until you try to do large matrices where you need to use ellipses and other things inside.
Also Latex notation for even simple things like paretheses sucks. \left( and \right) ? wtf? why not just \( and \)? the left and right is redundant. Stuff like that makes it unpleasant to use.
Re:Image to LaTeX
by ginnungagap on Thursday July 04, 2019 @02:34AM
(#20352093)
They do different things, ( and ) work just fine, but they are standard sized, while \left( and \right) adapt to the size of what's inside. It's kinda uncomfortable to write, but I guess it is done this way because the \left and \right commands can take a lot of different arguments
https://mathpix.com/
I’ve never found typing out LaTeX equations particularly tedious, unless you’re doing multi-page derivations in which case you’re spending more time checking for errors.