Skip to main content

functional style - Why are we so sure about Map results?


I do abuse it often but when I have faced this feature first time I was really suprised:


i = 0;
(i++; # - i) & /@ Range[5]



{0, 0, 0, 0, 0}



What am I asking about is how do we know Map will do 'mapping' position after position? Of course it might look logical but it is not stated, and then, since I know nothing about memory allocation etc., I could expect strange results. To be more precise, I could expect them only in cases where mapping funcion is changing during mapping.


I have failed to find a word in documentation, only related but not important in this case:



Leaves are visited before roots





Have I missed something?




Answer



I'm afraid my comment was too obscure to be noticed. Further, I disagree with one premise somewhere in the commentary, and I wish to make a fuller explanation to see if I understand correctly or incorrectly. Finally, I think the question is answered in the documentation on the Standard Evaluation Procedure:




  • Evaluate the head of the expression.

  • Evaluate each element in turn.

  • Apply transformations associated with the attributes Orderless, Listable, and Flat.

  • Apply any definitions that you have given.

  • Apply any built-in definitions.

  • Evaluate the result.




The first two implies that parts 0, 1, 2,... will be evaluated in order (unless one cavils that "in turn" does not imply order).


When Map[f, {1, 2, 3}] is evaluated, we get, after Map, f, and {1, 2, 3} are evaluated,


{f[1], f[2], f[3]}

Next this List is evaluated, with f[1], f[2], f[3] being evaluated in turn. Thus with the OP's function, the side effect on i is defined. Trace will show that what happens conforms to standard evaluation (of course).


Note that the mapping part (applying f to each element of {1, 2, 3}) might be done in any order. What matters is that the intermediate list {f[1], f[2], f[3]} is then evaluated in a defined order (left-to-right).


So, I think this behavior is defined by the documentation.





Edit: An additional Reference


In the tutorial on Evaluation, it states in "an expression like h[Subscript[e, 1], Subscript[e, 2]\[Ellipsis]], Mathematica evaluates "each element Subscript[e, i] in turn." I think the "in turn" with the reference to the subscript i must mean in the natural order of 1, 2,.... There always seem to be questions of interpretation in documentation, but if writers did not mean that, I think they could be fairly criticized for misleading users, which I doubt they are.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 - 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 - 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....