list manipulation - How do I disable that Mathematica orders terms in lexicographic order?

I have matrices with entries where the order of the entries is important. Unfortunately Mathematica resorts terms in products in a lexicographic order. For example,

A = {{a1, a2}, {a3, a4}};
B = {{b1, b2}, {b3, b4}};
Z = {{z1, z2}, {z3, z4}};

Z.B.A

    (* {{a1 (b1 z1 + b3 z2) + a3 (b2 z1 + b4 z2),

         a2 (b1 z1 + b3 z2) + a4 (b2 z1 + b4 z2)}, {a1 (b1 z3 + b3 z4) +
         a3 (b2 z3 + b4 z4),  a2 (b1 z3 + b3 z4) +  a4 (b2 z3 + b4 z4)}} *)

I would like that Mathematica keeps the order of the terms as they appear in the product, i.e.

(* z1 b1 a1 + ... *)

How can the lexicographic ordering be disabled?

Answer

This is related to the Orderless attribute of Times and Plus. These attributes could be removed permanently with some hacks, but that would break Mathematica.

If you only want to display the result in a certain way, but not do calculations with it, it may be safe to remove those attributes temporarily using Block.

Block[{Plus, Times}, With[{result = Z.B.A}, HoldForm[result]]]

Mathematica graphics

Update

Jacob is asking how to preserve some of the evaluation rules of Times, such as 0*x → 0 and 1*x → x, while still removing the Orderless attribute. This is possible with Internal`InheritedBlock. It works like Block in that any modifications to the blocked symbols will be temporary, but it does not remove blocked symbol definitions at the start. Thus we can selectively remove the Orderless attribute.

This is an undocumented function, so the usual caveats apply: it may change behaviour in future versions, it may behave unexpectedly, and it may even crash your kernel (this one has never crashed my kernel, but other internal functions have).

Internal`InheritedBlock[{Plus, Times},
 Unprotect[Plus, Times];
 ClearAttributes[{Plus, Times}, Orderless];

 With[{result = Z.B.A}, HoldForm[result]]
]

Comments

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.

Blog

Search This Blog