Skip to main content

plotting - Combining 2D slices into a 3D plot


I am currently trying to combine several 2D plots into one big 3D plot. The 2D-plots are simply input-results from calculations (so these things have 2D coördinates (x,y)). The results depend on an integer parameter n, and what I now want to do is combine these results on one big plot (with n on the z-axis).


I tried to do this with graphics3D, but the problem is that i the need the command Texture[] which rasterizes the background and thus yields difficulties when combining the plots. Is there a way to get the background out?


An example of my problem is given (when you look for example at the function y^2==a*x, where you want to vary the parameter a):


Show[Table[ Graphics3D[{Texture[ ContourPlot[y^2 == a*x, {x, 0, 2}, {y, -2, 2}, Frame -> False, ContourStyle -> Hue[(a - 1)/4], Background -> None]], Polygon[{{-\[Pi]/2, -\[Pi]/2, a}, {\[Pi]/2, -\[Pi]/2, a}, {\[Pi]/2, \[Pi]/2, a}, {-\[Pi]/2, \[Pi]/2, a}}, VertexTextureCoordinates -> {{0, 0}, {1, 0}, {1, 1}, {0, 1}}]}, Lighting -> "Neutral"], {a, 1, 5, 0.5}]]


which yields enter image description here



What I want to have is something like:


enter image description here


I don't know if there are any ways to get the background of Texture[] away ?



The actual question:


Given a set of 2D plots (which depend on some paramter "a"), how can I stack these 2D plots in a 3D plot (where the additional axis contains my parameter "a") without losing the background transparency of the different independent plots ?


Context of the question:


For example if you want to calculate a phase diagram of a physical system, then you will compare the free energy F(p,V,T) of the different phases for different values of T. Depending on which one is the smallest you can assign a color to the 2D plane, leading to a 2D "plot" of colors with coördinates. If I want to know how my different phases behave (in the (p,V)-plane) as a function of T, then I need to stack my different 2D planes.




Answer




Here's one way:


ContourPlot3D[y^2 == a*x,
   {x, 0, 2}, {y, -2, 2}, {a, 0.9, 5.1}, 
   MeshFunctions -> {#3 &}, Mesh -> {Table[a, {a, 1, 5, 0.5}]}, 
   ContourStyle -> None, BoundaryStyle -> None] /. 
 GraphicsComplex[p_, g_, opts___] :> 
  GraphicsComplex[p, 
   g /. Line[v_] :> {Hue[((p ~Part~ v[[1]] ~Part~ 3) - 1)/4], Thick, Line[v]}, opts]

Mathematica graphics



Response to updated question


It's not clear that the above method cannot be adapted to the "context of the question", as described. But let's address the problem of assembling a more-or-less random list of plots that "depend on an integer parameter n."


Show[MapIndexed[# /. {Graphics[g_, opts___] :> 
      Graphics3D[g /. p : {_Real, _Real} :> Join[p, #2], 
       FilterRules[{opts}, Graphics3D]]} &,
  plots
  ],
 BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1}, Axes -> True]

Note: it will fail if the graphics contain Text/Inset objects using the offset and direction parameters. They ought to remain 2D coordinates. Unless, that's a problem for the OP's use-case, I intend to leave that restriction in place. A similar restriction also exists for graphics that contain transformations.



P.S. Hint as to how to use Texture is in my comment below. But you have to generate the plots correctly first, so I feel it is disqualified, if we are to treat the plots as given.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more