formatting check

docs/manual.rst

@@ -24,21 +24,21 @@ In the ``orbitize!`` coordinate system, relative R.A. and declination can be exp
 of orbital parameters 
 
 .. math::
-    \Delta R.A. = \pi a(1-ecosE)[cos^2{i\over 2}sin(f+\omega_p+\Omega)-sin^2{i\over 2}sin(f+\omega_p-\Omega)]
-    \
+    \Delta R.A. = \pi a(1-ecosE)[cos^2{i\over 2}sin(f+\omega_p+\Omega)-sin^2{i\over 2}sin(f+\omega_p-\Omega)] \\
+
     \Delta decl. = \pi a(1-ecosE)[cos^2{i\over 2}cos(f+\omega_p+\Omega)+sin^2{i\over 2}cos(f+\omega_p-\Omega)]
 
 where 𝑎, 𝑒, :math:`\omega_p`, Ω, and 𝑖 are orbital parameters, and 𝜋 is the system parallax. f is
 the true anomaly, and E is the eccentric anomaly, which are related to elapsed time
 through Kepler’s equation and Kepler’s third law
 
 .. math::
-    M = 2\pi ({t\over P}-(\tau -\tau_{ref}))
-    \
-    ({P\over yr})^2 =({a\over au})^3({M_\odot \over M_{tot}})
-    \
-    M =E-esinE
-    \
+    M = 2\pi ({t\over P}-(\tau -\tau_{ref})) \\
+
+    ({P\over yr})^2 =({a\over au})^3({M_\odot \over M_{tot}}) \\
+    
+    M =E-esinE \\
+    
     f = 2tan^{-1}[\sqrt{{1+e\over 1-e}}tan{E\over 2}]
 
 ``orbitize!`` employs two Kepler solvers to convert between mean
@@ -49,23 +49,25 @@ orbit. See `Blunt et al. (2020) <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538
 From scrutinizing the above sets of equations, one may observe
 a few important degeneracies:
 
-    1. Individual component masses do not show up anywhere in this equation set. 
+#. Individual component masses do not show up anywhere in this equation set. 
 
-    2. The degeneracy between semimajor axis 𝑎, total mass :math:`𝑀_{tot}`, and
-    parallax 𝜋. If we just had relative astrometric measurements and no external knowledge of the system parallax, 
-    we would not be able to distinguish between a system
-    that has larger distance and larger semimajor axis (and therefore larger total mass,
-    assuming a fixed period) from a system that has smaller distance, smaller semimajor
-    axis, and smaller total mass. 
+#. The degeneracy between semimajor axis 𝑎, total mass :math:`𝑀_{tot}`, and
+parallax 𝜋. If we just had relative astrometric measurements and no external knowledge of the system parallax, 
+we would not be able to distinguish between a system
+that has larger distance and larger semimajor axis (and therefore larger total mass,
+assuming a fixed period) from a system that has smaller distance, smaller semimajor
+axis, and smaller total mass. 
+
+#. The argument of periastron :math:`\omega_p` and the position angle of nodes Ω. 
+The above defined R.A. and decl. functions are invariant to the transformation:
+.. math::
+    \omega_p' = \omega_p + \pi \\
+    
+    \Omega' = \Omega - \pi
 
-    3. The argument of periastron :math:`\omega_p` and the position angle of nodes Ω. 
-    The above defined R.A. and decl. functions are invariant to the transformation:
+which creates a 180◦ degeneracy between particular values of :math:`\omega_p` and Ω, and
+a characteristic “double-peaked” structure in marginalized 1D posteriors of these
+parameters. 
 
-    .. math::
-        \omega_p' = \omega_p + \pi
-        \
-        \Omega' = \Omega - \pi
 
-    which creates a 180◦ degeneracy between particular values of :math:`\omega_p` and Ω, and
-    a characteristic “double-peaked” structure in marginalized 1D posteriors of these
-    parameters. 
+More coming soon!