% LaTeX example by THC for CS 188 03F.

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage[mtbold]{mathtime}
\input{page}

\begin{document}

% Here's the correct way to make a title for a document.

% This command on its own won't produce any output.
\title{How to Lay Waste to Several Nations \\
in the Middle East}

% Nor will this one.
\author{G. W. Bush\thanks{Supported by the American Taxpayer.} \\
R. Cheney\thanks{Supported by Halliburton Corp.} \\
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. \\
Washington, DC
\and
R. Frist\thanks{Supported by the Republican Party.} \\
D. Hastert\thanks{Supported by the House Republican Caucus.} \\
% By backing up by 2 and just putting a footnote mark, we can get
% the same source of support for DeLay as for Frist.
T. DeLay\addtocounter{footnote}{-2}\footnotemark \\
Capitol Hill \\
Washington, DC}

% If you omit this command, the current date will be used.
% If you don't want any date to appear, use \date{}
\date{March 2003}

% Now we get to produce the title!
\maketitle

\begin{abstract}

We'll talk about the abstract when we get to how to organize a paper.
For now, just bear in mind that 50\% of the people who pick up your
paper will read the abstract and nothing else.  So make it short and
sweet.

By the way, that 50\% number---I made it up.

\end{abstract}

\section{What is a section?}

Now you probably know this, but in a technical paper, you'll want to
use the \verb`\section` command to start each section.  If, for some
reason, you don't want a section to be numbered, then you use the
\verb`\section*` command.

\section*{What is an unnumbered section?}

It's entirely a matter of style whether you write your section names
in title case or instead capitalize just the first word and proper
nouns.  Personally, I prefer the latter.  But when writing something
with chapters, I use title case for the chapter names, even if the
section names are not in title case.  (That's what we did in both
editions of the book.)

\section{What happens to section numbers when a numbered section
follows an unnumbered section?}

The answer is that unnumbered sections just don't count.  

Did you happen to notice that the first paragraph of each section is
not indented?  This paragraph is indented, but it's not the first one
in its section.

\section{It would look strange to have the first paragraph of a
section be indented}

\hspace{\parindent}You probably had never really noticed this
phenomenon before.  But if I'm doing my job correctly, you'll never
again accept an indented paragraph at the beginning of a section.

I should not have had to use a \verb`\hspace{\parindent}` command
above.  On page~171, Lamport describes a \verb`\indent` command that
should have worked.

\section{Superfluous section}

\indent Yet, the \verb`\indent` command does not work.

\subsection{You can make a subsection}

Notice that the first paragraph of a subsection is not indented.

\subsubsection{You can make a subsubsection}

Ditto for subsubsections.

\paragraph{Then you get into sections called paragraphs}

Look Ma, the heading runs into the text!

Paragraphs are unnumbered.

\subparagraph{The end of the line, sectioning-wise}

And now, even the section name is indented!

Subparagraphs are also unnumbered.

\subsection{Should you use subsections and subsubsections?}

To quote our President, ``When I was young and foolish, I was young
and foolish.''  In my case, that included a belief that I should use
subsections, subsubsections, subsubsubsections, ad infinitum.  The
numbering system would give the reader a sense of location in the
logical structure of the document.  (Notice how deftly I avoided
having to use gender in the previous sentence.)

But at the feet of the Master, Leiserson, I learned otherwise.  Like a
horn player in a mariachi band, flatter is better.  It is best to
avoid going below sections in a technical paper.  It is better to have
\mbox{Sections 1--10} than Sections 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2, 2.1, 2.2, 3,
4, 4.1, and~4.2.  Just make sure that the reader can infer the
location in the logical structure from the text.

\newcommand{\subheading}[1]{\subsubsection*{#1}}

\subheading{A paradox}

Yet, I am in love with unnumbered subsubsections!  They may not beat
the feeling of cutting a dado in a piece of hardwood, but they're
close.  I use them so often that I include the above macro in my
thcmac2e.tex file.

What's so great about subheadings?  They serve two purposes:
\begin{enumerate}

\item They break up the page so that it is not a solid block of text.
My first editor at McGraw-Hill used to talk about ``the Hebrew prayer
book'' look, in which a page has nothing but uninterrupted text.  It
is intimidating and makes it difficult to keep one's place on the
page.

\item They provide guideposts for the reader.  In a sense, they are
like very short topic paragraphs.  \emph{But} subheadings do not
replace topic paragraphs!  Write the text as if the subheadings were
not there.

\end{enumerate}

\section{Should section names have $\Omega(1)$ math in them?}

What is wrong with this section name?  The math expression looks
wimpy.

\section{That's why you use the $\backslash$boldmath command when
there's \boldmath$\Omega(1)$ math}

Except that I still haven't figured out how to get the backslash in
bold in the section name.  I would have liked to have written ``\ldots
use the \verb+\verb`\boldmath`+ command \ldots'' in the section name.
But I cannot.  The \verb+\verb+ command is not allowed to appear in
the argument to any macro.  So then I tried putting \verb`\boldmath`
before the \verb`$\backslash$` in the section name.  It compiled, but
dvips choked, giving me the error, ``mtsyb.pfb: No such file or
directory,'' indicating that it doesn't have a bold version of the
backslash symbol.  So I just went with a nonbold version of it.

Life can be like that.

\section{Type styles}

Section~3.1 of Lamport goes over the commands to get upright, italic,
slanted, small caps, medium, boldface, roman, sans serif, and
typewriter styles.  You can mix these commands together, within
reason.  So if you want bold italic, \textbf{\textit{you can get it}}.
You can get \textsc{\textsf{small caps sans serif}}.  You can even get
\textsl{\textbf{\texttt{slanted boldface typewriter}}}.

\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\textbf{\textit{#1}}}

Heed Lamport's advice about not using these commands in your text.  If
you have reason to change the font, then there's probably some meaning
behind the font change.  Make yourself a macro.  For example, if you
want definitions to appear in bold italic (as in CLRS), define the
macro
\begin{verbatim}
\newcommand{\defn}[1]{\textbf{\textit{#1}}}
\end{verbatim}
So now you can have text like this:
\begin{quote}
A \defn{goal} occurs when the puck entirely crosses the goal line between
the goalposts.
\end{quote}

\section{Accents}

Lamport pretty much says it all on page~38.  If what you're putting
the accent over is just one letter, as it usually is, then you can
omit the curly braces around the letter.  In other words, est\'a is
the same as est\'{a}.

\end{document}