Skip to main content

plotting - Rules governing Plot line generation


I was looking at the Documentation Center for Round, Ceiling and Floor when I noticed that the plots for Round showed some variation, even at the small size that the Documentation Center displays them, when blown up... well:


Plot[Round[x, 10], {x, -30, 30}, Filling -> Axis]

Rounding at 10


Plot[Round[x], {x, -3, 3}, Filling -> Axis]


Rounding at 1


This intrigued me, I don't fully understand the rules governing generation of plots from functions. Clearly the method is adaptive, generating more data points where there is "activity," but is the (dis)continuity just based on the resolution that the plot is generated using?


Any insight is welcome.



Answer



This is probably not a complete answer. Plot attempts at some point to detect discontinuities symbolically. With a few built-ins, it can do it. Round[x] is an example but for some reason Round[x, 1] is not


Those discontinuities are excluded from the plots (see Exclusions)


So, for example, compare the output of these


Plot[Round[x], {x, -3, 3}]
Plot[Round[x, 1], {x, -3, 3}]


If you define r[x_?NumericQ]:=Round[x], then r[x] behaves the same way as Round[x, 1] because it doesn't know how to manipulate your custom r symbolically


Now, if Plot already knows beforehand it has a discontinuity somewhere, it can be smarter than usual. For example, it can try to make the discontinuities sharper by sampling right on the sides.


x1 = Reap[
     Plot[Round[x, 1], {x, -3, 3}, Filling -> Axis, 
      EvaluationMonitor -> Sow[x]]][[-1, 1]] // Rest;
x2 = Reap[
     Plot[Round[x], {x, -3, 3}, Filling -> Axis, 
      EvaluationMonitor -> Sow[x]]][[-1, 1]] // Rest;
Complement[x2, x1]



{-2.50191, -2.49809, -1.50191, -1.49809, -0.501913, -0.498087, \ 0.498087, 0.501913, 1.49809, 1.50191, 2.49809, 2.50191}



As to the rendering issues with the Filling, that's because it excludes discontinuities by default. Try with Exclusions->None


Plot[Round[x], {x, -3, 3}, Filling -> Axis, Exclusions -> None]

Related question: Managing Exclusions in Plot[ ]


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