Skip to main content

plotting - Why does the replace all (/.) evaluate differently in plot


I'm plotting this function:


Plot[(2 (l/2 π)^2 ((2 π f)/c)^2 /. {f -> (f 10^9), 

     l -> .01, c -> 3 10^8}), {f, 17.5, 26.5}]

but it does not plot correctly unless I do this:


Plot[Evaluate[(2 (l/2 π)^2 ((2 π f)/c)^2 /. {f -> (f 10^9), 
     l -> .01, c -> 3 10^8})], {f, 17.5, 26.5}]

Why is the replace all command being evaluated differently in the two cases?



Answer



This is strongly related to Plot draws list of curves in same color when not using Evaluate but the specific issue there has to do with styling of lines rather than evaluation itself.


In this case the question is why the curve scale ends up different. For that you need to understand how Plot works. It is akin to Block over the plot variables. Now consider:



Block[{f = 3},
 (2 (l/2 π)^2 ((2 π f)/c)^2 /. {f -> (f 10^9), l -> .01, c -> 3 10^8})
]

Block[{f = 3},
 Evaluate[(2 (l/2 π)^2 ((2 π f)/c)^2 /. {f -> (f 10^9), l -> .01, c -> 3 10^8})]
]


1.94818*10^-18


1.94818

Clearly the replacement rule is not having the same effect in both cases. Critically ReplaceAll does not hold its arguments therefore standard evaluation order is followed which means that we get something like this:


Block[{f = 3},
 foo[2 (l/2 π)^2 ((2 π f)/c)^2, {f -> (f 10^9), l -> .01, c -> 3 10^8}]
]


foo[(18 l^2 π^4)/c^2, {3 -> 3000000000, l -> 0.01, c -> 300000000}]


(foo stands in as an arbitrary head with standard evaluation.) Note that the replacement rule is now 3 -> 3000000000 and that 3 does not appear in the left-hand side. We would need ReplaceAll to also hold its arguments to prevent this; it can be simulated using Unevaluated:


Block[{f = 3},
 Unevaluated[2 (l/2 π)^2 ((2 π f)/c)^2] /. 
  Unevaluated[{f -> (f 10^9), l -> .01, c -> 3 10^8}]
]


1.94818


Evaluate works in your example because it causes a symbolic evaluation outside the scope of Plot. However for the same reason if f has a global value it will again fail. It is more robust to use Unevaluated as shown above but this is rather inconvenient. There is another robust though undocumented method: the Plot option Evaluated -> True. This causes an evaluation of the plot function before a value is substituted but after the variable is scoped by Plot:


f = 1.23;

Plot[(2 (l/2 π)^2 ((2 π f)/c)^2 /. {f -> (f 10^9), l -> .01, c -> 3 10^8}),
  {f, 17.5, 26.5}, Evaluated -> True]

enter image description here


This option won't scope the other two replacement symbols l and c of course but it is still my preferred approach for such problems. Also look at HoldPattern which can be of some utility.


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