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

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...

list manipulation - Selecting multiple columns from a matrix?

Sample data: data = { {{2013, 1, 1}, 24.13, 167.67, 231.82}, {{2013, 1, 2}, 32.15, 170.92, 225.99}, {{2013, 1, 3}, 35.43, 172.68, 221.67}, {{2013, 1, 4}, 36.73, 173.05, 218.32}, {{2013, 1, 5}, 58.19, 165.96, 197.05}, {{2013, 1, 6}, 69.99, 163.50, 187.52}, {{2013, 1, 7}, 71.37, 154.21, 175.58}, {{2013, 1, 8}, 72.51, 149.66, 163.25}}; I want a DateListPlot with three graphs, so for a matrix formed by columns 1 and 2, one for columns 1 and 3, and 1 for columns 1 and 4. At the moment I'm using this code: data2 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 2]]}]; data3 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 3]]}]; data4 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 4]]}]; DateListPlot[{data2, data3, data4}, Joined -> True, Filling -> {3 -> {1}}] but I have a hunch that this can be done more efficiently. I don't like the Transpose s in particular. Any ideas? edit (for extra credit) What if I need to multiply the second column by 2, which in my solution is simp...