Skip to main content

function construction - A question about two ways to use Default


Usually we define a function with default values by the syntax x_:default, but there is another technique to do this by registering a global default value with Default. In the Document, there are three ways to use Default, two of which have confused me.


The document tells that




Default[f,i] gives the default value to use when _. appears as the i-th argument of f



, while



Default[f,i,n] gives the default value for the i-th argument out of a total of n arguments



. Therefore, I have tried the following comparison:


Default[f, 1] = a1;
Default[f, 2] = a2;

Default[f, 3] = a3;
f[x_., y_., z_.] := {x, y, z}
{f[], f[1], f[1, 2], f[1, 2, 3]}

The result is {{a1, a2, a3}, {1, a2, a3}, {1, 2, a3}, {1, 2, 3}}.


ClearAll[f];
Default[f, 1, 3] = a1;
Default[f, 2, 3] = a2;
Default[f, 3, 3] = a3;
f[x_., y_., z_.] := {x, y, z}

{f[], f[1], f[1, 2], f[1, 2, 3]}

This give the same result.


It seems that there is no difference between these two ways to use Default. If there were no difference, why would the document list the two ways?


I'd appreciate it if someone could provide some information.



Answer



The third parameter allows control of Optional behavior for multiple function definitions. It is not attached to the number of actual arguments passed to the function but rather to the number of arguments that appear in the function definition itself. Consider this example:


ClearAll[f];

Default[f, 1, 3] = a1;

Default[f, 2, 3] = a2;
Default[f, 3, 3] = a3;
f[x_., y_., z_.] := {x, y, z}

Default[f, 1, 2] = Q;
Default[f, 2, 2] = R;
f[x_., Optional[y_Symbol]] := foo[x, y]

Now:


{f[], f[1], f[1, 2], f[1, 2, 3]}



{foo[Q, R], foo[1, R], {1, 2, a3}, {1, 2, 3}}

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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}]

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}]

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....