Skip to main content

front end - Why one needs two Unevaluated to show 1+1 correctly in TreeForm?


The task sounds simple, give the tree plot of 1+1. However, after some trying, I can only make this possible by using two Unevaluated.


TreeForm@Unevaluated@Unevaluated[1+1]


TreeForm Plot



Since Head@Unevaluate[1+1] gives Plus, as expected, my first guess is that one Unevaluated is enough, however


TreeForm@Unevaluated[1+1]


gives 2.


Looks like somehow the front-end evaluates 1+1 again during the plot.


So my question is how to understand this behavior? Or are there any other conceptually correct ways to do the plot?



Answer



This issue is known and it is a defect of TreeForm like Leonid already said. Let me give an illustrative example that shows the same behavior. Let us assume you want a function that just returns its input unevaluated.


Without thinking we put down the function


f1[arg_] := HoldForm[arg]

Now, what seems like a clever idea has one flaw: when you evaluate f1[1+1] the 1+1 is already evaluated before f1 is called, because this is how the standard evaluation in Mathematica works. It evaluates all arguments of a function. Let us look at the Trace:



Trace[f1[1+1]]
(* {{1+1,2},f1[2],2} *)

You see, the 1+1 is turned into 2 and after that, f1 is called. There is no chance your HoldForm could do anything useful.


But now you say, I can prevent exactly this evaluation by using Unevaluated. This is by the way the use-case for Unevaluated: You want to stop the evaluation of an argument to make that it reaches the body of your function unharmed:


Trace[f1[Unevaluated[1+1]]]
(* {f1[1+1],1+1} *)

Perfect. But let's assume you rather want to turn your expression into a String instead of returning it with HoldForm. No problem you will say, because now you know how it works:


f2[arg_] := ToString[arg]

f2[Unevaluated[1+1]]
(* 2 *)

You don't have to think hard why this doesn't work when you have read carefully up to here. On every function call, the arguments are evaluated if this evaluation was not prevented by something. Let us look at the trace:


Trace[f2[Unevaluated[1+1]]]
(* {f2[1+1],ToString[1+1],{1+1,2},ToString[2],2} *)

You see the 1+1 makes it unharmed to ToString but gets evaluated before ToString does its action. How could we prevent this? We could wrap another layer of Unevaluated around our expression:


Trace[f2[Unevaluated@Unevaluated[1+1]]]
(* {f2[Unevaluated[1+1]],ToString[Unevaluated[1+1]],ToString[1+1],1 + 1} *)


The first Unevaluated brings our expression unharmed inside f2, the second Unevaluated makes it survive the call of ToString.


Something similar happens in TreeForm and it is the reason, why a double Unevaluated works.


The final question



Why did f1 work then? There, the one Unevaluated should be eaten by the f1 call and HoldForm should evaluate 1+1 just like ToString did.



Exactly, instead of it doesn't because it has another way to say I don't evaluate my arguments.


Attributes[HoldForm]
(* {HoldAll,Protected} *)


The function HoldForm has the attribute HoldAll which says: "I don't evaluate any of my arguments". And it is true, if you think about it with your knowledge now, the only reason why this


In[22]:= HoldForm[1+1]
Out[22]= 1+1

returns 1+1, has to be something special about HoldForm. Therefore, here comes a third function that concludes the explanation:


SetAttributes[f3,{HoldAll}];
f3[arg_]:=ToString[Unevaluated[arg]]
f3[1+1]
(* 1 + 1 *)

Comments

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...

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...

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...