Skip to main content

Given the OneIdentity attribute why is GCD[a] evaluated to GCD[a]?


GCD has attribute OneIdentity, so why doesn't GCD[a] evaluate to a?



Answer



GCD[a] returns unevaluated because the definitions of GCD only apply when all arguments are numeric. The presence of even one non-numeric argument yields an unevaluated result:


ClearAll[a]
GCD[1, 2, 3, a]
(* GCD[1, 2, 3, a] *)


This is true even when the sole argument is non-numeric:


GCD[a]
(* GCD[a] *)

The attribute OneIdentity has no bearing on this behaviour because that attribute only modifies pattern-matching, not evaluation. This is in contrast to an attribute like Flat which actually introduces an evaluation step to flatten expressions.


The way that OneIdentity modifies pattern-matching is... unusual. The documentation states:



OneIdentity is an attribute that can be assigned to a symbol f to indicate the f[x], f[f[x]], etc. are all equivalent to x for the purpose of pattern matching.




This statement does not tell the whole story, and neither do the examples in the comments (at least, in the documentation so far up to v10).


The missing information concerns a further restriction on the pattern. There must be at least one Optional argument and no more than one non-optional argument in the pattern f[...].


The simple case shown in the description of OneIdentity does not work:


ClearAll[f, a]
SetAttributes[f, OneIdentity]

MatchQ[a, f[x_]]
(* False *)

One must add an optional argument before OneIdentity will act:



MatchQ[a, f[x_:0]]
(* True *)

Unlike Flat, the operation of OneIdentity does not change the form of the matched component:


ClearAll[f, g, a]
SetAttributes[f, OneIdentity]

g[m:f[x_:0, y_]] := {m, x, y}

g[a]

(* {a, 0, a} *)

Note how m does not become "wrapped" in f.


Also, OneIdentity only operates when f appears in the pattern. It is not enough for it to appear only in the expression being matched:


MatchQ[f[a], a]
(* False *)

Thus, nestings of f are never "fully unwrapped", even for pattern-matching.


The following examples show various use cases of OneIdentity. The common theme is that OneIdentity only operates when at least one Optional argument appears in the first two pattern argument positions:


ClearAll[f, a]

SetAttributes[f, OneIdentity]

MatchQ[a, f[x_:0]]             === True &&
MatchQ[a, f[x_:0, y_]]         === True &&
MatchQ[a, f[x_, y_:0]]         === True &&
MatchQ[a, f[x_:0, y_:0]]       === True &&
MatchQ[a, f[x_:0, y_:0, z_:0]] === True &&
MatchQ[a, f[x_:0, y_:0, ___]]  === True &&
MatchQ[a, f[x_:0, ___]]        === True &&
MatchQ[a, f[x___:0]]           === True &&

MatchQ[a, f[a, x_:0]]          === True &&
MatchQ[a, f[x_:0, a]]          === True &&
MatchQ[a, f[x_:0, y_, z_:0]]   === True &&
MatchQ[a, f[_:f[_:f[x_:0]]]]   === True &&
MatchQ[f[a], f[f[_:f[x_:0]]]]  === True &&

MatchQ[a, f[a]]                === False &&
MatchQ[a, f[x_]]               === False &&
MatchQ[a, f[x_, ___]]          === False &&
MatchQ[a, f[x_, ___, y_:0]]    === False &&

MatchQ[a, f[a, ___]]           === False &&
MatchQ[a, f[x___]]             === False &&
MatchQ[a, f[x_:0, y_, z_]]     === False &&
MatchQ[a, f[f[f[x_:0]]]]       === False &&
MatchQ[f[a], f[f[f[x_]]]]      === False &&
MatchQ[f[a], a]                === False

(* True *)

The examples with nested f show that the optional arguments must appear at all nested levels in order to allow OneIdentity to take effect.



As to why OneIdentity operates according to such arcane rules, and why the documentation does not spell out those rules, I must pass over in silence.


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