+2487 May this might be because of Bing?
Why yes, Bing, the Microsoft search engine, causes all sorts of problems –on the net and everywhere else. It causes inflation, software crashes, constipation, diarrhea, PMS, and stupidity. It spreads viruses –not just computer viruses; it causes influenza and Covid outbreaks everywhere. So, it most certainly causes problems with LaTex on Web2.0calc.com.
I asked the Oracle of Bing how it is that you’ve managed to remain alive this long. Fourteen hours later it presented the most probable reason:
DUMB LUCK.
The Oracle of Bing did not define it as good luck or bad luck, because that would depend on the reader’s perspective.
----------
On a serious note, I actually do understand your (implied) question, which is (maybe) how to edit or insert ascii text to the left of a rendered LaTex statement. The answer depends on which form of LaTex you are using.
For inline LaTex, finding the beginning of the LaTex is obvious. The Latex is unrendered, displayed as ASCII code while in edit mode; so, to the left of the delimiter that activates the LaTex is the spot. The rendered LaTex displays normally in preview mode.
In your above post, you are using the LaTex dialog box (not to be confused with \mbox) for each LaTex statement. In this case, as you move your mouse over the LaTex statement string, the statement string will highlight with a yellow/amber outline. At this point, left click with your mouse and it will highlight with a light blue background and outline; then, using the curser key, move one space to the left. You can then type in what you want. If you double click the highlighted LaTex then it opens the dialogue box, where you can edit the LaTex.
---------------
Some forum history...
Andre Massow updated the forum’s editor with the LaTex-finding outlines/highlights in past year or so. Prior to this, you had to search for a 10x1 pixel vertical line, which is the actual space occupied by the ASCII tag in the document. The only way to know you found it was to observe the word “math” appear on the bottom left side [body p math] while in edit mode. These boxes could sometimes be a royal pain-in-the-ass to find. This is normally used to searched for and edit the LaTex in the dialogue box.
For more information on inline Latex see https://web2.0calc.com/questions/latex-delimiters
The information is still valid; however, about a year ago, and until a few week ago, a single dollar sign ($) would also activate and deactivate the Latex. Using the $ to post something like $6.59 in ASCII was nearly impossible: The $ would turn on the LaTex and 6.59 would display in LaTex without the $ sign, the text characters that followed would display in LaTex without spaces.
Well-presented old posts that had $ signs looked like slop. Andre Massow deactivated this delimiter a few weeks ago.
My thought: “Good-goddamn-riddance.” Using a single character to activate LaTex is just plain dumb!
Dumbness is contagious... because like a bloody idiot I used the delimiter for inline LaTex in several posts before it dawned on me that Andre Massow would one day get around to deactivating it. He did, but it took him a year.
Now those posts display the LaTex ASCII code instead of rendering. And, of course, I cannot edit any of those posts.
A final thought: To properly use a computer, you have to be smarter than the computer. For you, that may happen someday; probably sometime around the middle of the next Ice Age. 
GA
--. .-
So what if Strait's English is not always perfect.
Melody, I made no comment about Straight’s English language skills (or lack thereof) in my post. My criticism is based on his math skills (or lack thereof). His math skills are atrocious, and that’s an observable fact in his post. It’s also an observable fact that his English writing skills suck too, but I didn’t comment on it in the above post. I did comment in this post.
He/she is still learning the language and you cannot learn a language without using it.
Yes, that is true, but you also have to use the language correctly. The same is true for math; you can’t just plop slop and call it OK. Plopping slop means you just reinforced the wrong method for yourself and for others who read the post.
Almost all the errors are trivial and the meaning is almost always perfectly clear.
OMG! I hope this comment is a jest! Below, you say he misunderstood the question, but he didn’t –he understood the question, he just doesn’t know how to solve it. If this was just a brain-dead moment, Straight would have corrected it after reading my troll post. I intentionally did not present a solution to allow for this option. I’m not surprised he didn’t, because he admits with this eloquent phrase, “But maybe it is for me incomprehensible,” that he doesn’t know how to do it. This is a grade six or seven basic math rounding problem. Straight’s errors are not trivial and there are many of them; he mangled it.
It seems contradictory to the theory of math to call an error “trivial” when the solution result is wrong. A trivial error is usually a rounding error where the insignificant digits converge via a math operation or function to alter the least significant digit by one unit. In this case, a better definition might be the correction for the error is trivial. An example of a “trivial correction” for your solution post below: remove one of the 9s in the denominator to give (486/999) then reduce to (18/37) by dividing the numerator and denominator by (27). It’s arbitrary, but it does seem trivial.
Even if Straight’s English syntax was perfect, it still would not affect the interpretation of the math and algorithms he used for the solution. Although, you might have recognize the presentation of slop more better quicklyer. This supports the statement I wrote in the above post: “... no one else can comprehend your slop either.” As you might see, this has very little to do with English writing skills and a whole heII of a lot to do with math skills or lack thereof.
Here’s another example of straight’s wizardry with math: https://web2.0calc.com/questions/help-plz_94626
There’s an introduction and one sentence. There is nothing wrong with the English.
The math is an elaborately detailed derivative, which is correctly executed. However, it’s NOT the correct solution for the question –it’s not even close. Is this a trivial error, a communication error, or a math error? If this derivative generated the correct answer I’d call it a Rube Goldberg math solution. (Alan just posted a solution for this... accurate, short, and to the point. No derivative. I wonder why not.)
Keep using English Straight, and ignore people like this.
Yes, keep using English Straight, but don’t ignore me, or people like me. Because you can actually learn something: In this case you learned: the period is called a decimal [point]. Rounding is not used for converting decimal numbers to a fraction. And you are atrocious at solving seventh grade rounding problems
I admire your effort to learn and use a foreign language!
I too, admire Straight's efforts. I read and write seven (7) languages, two of them fluently. I speak five of these languages, two of them fluently. So I do have an idea of the effort involved.
GA
--. .-
