對齊環境中的水平盒溢出 - 我應該如何斷線？

Question

我試圖創建一個邏輯論證，但出現了 hbox 過滿的錯誤。

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath, amsthm, amssymb, amsfonts}

\begin{align*} 
P1\text{*}: & \quad \text{P1 is a mathematical abstraction of distance.} \\ 
P2\text{*}: & \quad \text{P2 is a statement regarding distances in the physical world.} \\
P3\text{*}: & \quad \text{The physical world requires a resolution to distinguish distance, while mathematics can use any resolution.} \\
C1\text{*}: & \quad \text{Therefore, Zeno's argument is flawed.}
\end{align*}

我想在「物理世界需要解析度來區分距離，而數學可以使用任何解析度。」行中的逗號處分割線，但我該怎麼做呢？謝謝！

Answer 1

這裡有兩種使用tabularxor 的可能性itemize：

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{tabularx}

\begin{document}
\noindent
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{l<:X}
P1* & P1 is a mathematical abstraction of distance.\\
P2* & P2 is a statement regarding distances in the physical world. \\
P3* & The physical world requires a resolution to distinguish distance, while mathematics can use any resolution. \\
C1 & Therefore, Zeno's argument is flawed.
\end{tabularx}

\begin{itemize}
\item[P1*:] P1 is a mathematical abstraction of distance.
\item [P2*:]  P2 is a statement regarding distances in the physical world. 
\item[P3*:]  The physical world requires a resolution to distinguish distance, while mathematics can use any resolution. 
\item[C1:]  Therefore, Zeno's argument is flawed.
\end{itemize}
\end{document}

Answer 2

有了description環境和包包enumitem：

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage[showframe]{geometry}
\usepackage{enumitem}

\begin{document}

\begin{description}[font = \normalfont, labelwidth=1cm, leftmargin=!, itemsep=2pt]
\item[P1\textsuperscript{*}:] P1 is a mathematical abstraction of distance.
\item[P2\textsuperscript{*}:] P2 is a statement regarding distances in the physical world. distinguish distance, while mathematics can use any resolution.
\item[P3\textsuperscript{*}:] The physical world requires a resolution to distinguish distance, while mathematics can use any resolution.
\item[C1\textsuperscript{*}:] Therefore, Zeno's argument is flawed.
\end{description}

\end{document}