Skip to main content

evaluation - What is the Difference Between Rule (->) and RuleDelayed (:>)?


I am new to Mathematica so this question may seem rudimentary. Sorry for that! :)


I want to implement the well-known property of Kronecker's Delta


$$\Sigma_{i=1}^{n} a_i \delta_{ij}=a_j,\quad 1 \le j \le n$$


So I wrote the following code


KroDelProp[Eq_] := Module[{R, c, i, j, a, b},
R = Inactive[Sum][c_*KroneckerDelta[i_, j_], {i_, a_, b_}] :> (c /. i -> j);
Eq /. R
]

Eq = Inactive[Sum][a[i]*KroneckerDelta[i, j], {i, 1, n}]
KroDelProp[Eq]
(* a[j] *)

So everything looks fine. But when I use Rule instead of RuleDelayed in KroDelProp then I get


KroDelProp[Eq_] := Module[{R, c, i, j, a, b},
R = Inactive[Sum][c_*KroneckerDelta[i_, j_], {i_, a_, b_}] -> (c /. i -> j);
Eq /. R
]
Eq = Inactive[Sum][a[i]*KroneckerDelta[i, j], {i, 1, n}]

KroDelProp[Eq]
(* a[i] *)

I read the documentation but I couldn't find out what is happening here!


Can someone shed some light on this? :)




I found reading this documentation very useful. Hope that it helps the future readers of this post too.



Answer



Perhaps the easiest way to highlight the differences is to isolate the substitution rules you constructed in each case. See what the following rules evaluate to:


(* Rule *)

Inactive[Sum][c_*KroneckerDelta[i_, j_], {i_, a_, b_}] -> (c /. i -> j)

immediate


(* RuleDelayed *)
Inactive[Sum][c_*KroneckerDelta[i_, j_], {i_, a_, b_}] :> (c /. i -> j)

delayed


You can clearly see that in the first case (simple Rule), the right hand side of the rule is immediately evaluated; in that case c does not contain i so the second replacement in RHS doesn't apply, and the RHS just evaluates to c. When you apply this substitution rule, c matches a[i] in the expression, so that's what's returned.


With RuleDelayed evaluation of the right hand side is delayed until after a match has been found. In this case, c matches to a[i]; the right hand side then evaluates to a[i] /. i -> j, which produces the correct result.


Comments

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}]

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 - 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.