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

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.
Post a Comment
Read more