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

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...

list manipulation - Selecting multiple columns from a matrix?

Sample data: data = { {{2013, 1, 1}, 24.13, 167.67, 231.82}, {{2013, 1, 2}, 32.15, 170.92, 225.99}, {{2013, 1, 3}, 35.43, 172.68, 221.67}, {{2013, 1, 4}, 36.73, 173.05, 218.32}, {{2013, 1, 5}, 58.19, 165.96, 197.05}, {{2013, 1, 6}, 69.99, 163.50, 187.52}, {{2013, 1, 7}, 71.37, 154.21, 175.58}, {{2013, 1, 8}, 72.51, 149.66, 163.25}}; I want a DateListPlot with three graphs, so for a matrix formed by columns 1 and 2, one for columns 1 and 3, and 1 for columns 1 and 4. At the moment I'm using this code: data2 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 2]]}]; data3 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 3]]}]; data4 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 4]]}]; DateListPlot[{data2, data3, data4}, Joined -> True, Filling -> {3 -> {1}}] but I have a hunch that this can be done more efficiently. I don't like the Transpose s in particular. Any ideas? edit (for extra credit) What if I need to multiply the second column by 2, which in my solution is simp...