Skip to main content

evaluation - Order of operations, precedence in Mathematica




I get confused in the order of operations in Mathematica. For example,


f /@ 10^{1, 2, 3}
{10, 100, 1000}

In my head, that should be


{f[10], f[100], f[1000]}

After using FullForm, I see that my command should be regarded as : (f /@ 10)^{1, 2, 3}. In fact, () is not often used in Mathematica code, and I'm always not sure about the order of the expression evaluation. And I can't find the information about this order.


For example, in C: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations



On MathWorld, it is just the basic : http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Precedence.html




  1. Parenthesization,




  2. Factorial,




  3. Exponentiation,





  4. Multiplication and division,




  5. Addition and subtraction.




Another example: let look at the order of this:


x + x /. x -> y

2 y

x + (x /. x -> y)
x + y

And it takes time to understand this:


x + y /. x -> 1 + y + x /. x -> 5
6 + 2 y

Without the order of operations, one can get confused by interpret this expression, and of course, we can use ().



((x + y) /. x -> 1) +(( y + x) /. x -> 5)  
x + y /. x -> (1 + y + x) /. x -> 5

Another example, one can get confused:


Cases[{1, 2, 3}, _?#1 < 2 &]

or


Cases[{1, 2, 3}, _?(#1 < 2) &]

or



Cases[{1, 2, 3}, _?(#1 < 2 &)]

Another examples, which one & or /. is more privileged ?


x /. x -> y + #1 &

x + #1 & /. x -> y

I really appreciate any rule of thumbs or a guide of the operation ordered: /@, @@, _?, /., ->,& ...



Answer



You can check the precedence using Precedence. So for you first example it works that way because Precedence[Power] < Precedence[Map]. You have furthermore that Precedence[Function] < Precedence[ReplaceAll] for one of your later queries.



When you get confused and need to tell what the precedence is the fastest way though is to use FullForm and Hold. There are variations of this, I forget which one is considered best practice, but it works like this:


FullForm[Hold[f /@ 10^{1, 2, 3}]]
(* Out: Hold[Power[Map[f,10],List[1,2,3]]] *)

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.