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


Σni=1aiδij=aj,1≤j≤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

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