Skip to main content

pattern matching - Given a symbolic expression how to find if starts with a minus or not?


I am using a Mathematica function which returns some error term in symbolic form. I needed a way to determine if this term starts with a minus sign or not. There will be only one term. This is to avoid having to worry about Mathematica auto arranging terms like x-h to become -h+x and hence it is not fair to ask for more than one term solution.


Here are some examples of the expressions, all in input form


negativeTruetests = {(-(71/12))*h^2*Derivative[4][f],

(-1)*h^2*Derivative[10][f],
(-(359/3))*h^2*Derivative[10][f], -2*h, -x*h^-2, -1/h*x }

negativeFalseTests = { h^2*Derivative[4][f] , h^2*Derivative[4][f],
33*h^2*Derivative[4][f], h^-2, 1/h}

I need a pattern to check if the expression starts with minus sign or not.


Mathematica graphics



Answer



I will use your test lists alone as reference. If they are incomplete you will need to update the question.



When looking for a pattern for a group of expressions it is helpful to look at their TreeForm:


TreeForm /@ {negativeTruetests (*sic*), negativeFalseTests} // Column

enter image description here


enter image description here


You see that your True expressions always have the head Times with one negative leaf, be it -1, -2 or a Rational that is negative. Your False expressions either have head Times or Power but in the case of Times they do not have a negative leaf. Therefore for these expressions you may use:


p = _. _?Negative;

MatchQ[#, p] & /@ negativeTruetests
MatchQ[#, p] & /@ negativeFalseTests



{True, True, True, True, True, True}


{False, False, False, False, False}



Because of the Optional and OneIdentity(1) this pattern will also handle a negative singlet:


MatchQ[#, p] & /@ {-Pi, 7/22}


{True, False}





Format-level pattern matching


Since it was revealed that this question relates to formatting it may be more appropriate to perform the test in that domain.


I will use a recursive pattern as I did for How to match expressions with a repeating pattern after converting to boxes with ToBoxes:


test = MatchQ[#, RowBox[{"-" | _?#0, __}]] & @ ToBoxes @ # &;

test /@ negativeTruetests
test /@ negativeFalseTests



{True, True, True, True, True, True}


{False, False, False, False, False}



Another approach is to convert to a StandardForm string and use StringMatchQ, which is essentially the same as the test above because StandardForm uses encoded Boxes:


test2 = StringMatchQ[ToString[#, StandardForm], ("\!" | "\(") ... ~~ "-" ~~ __] &;

test2 /@ negativeTruetests
test2 /@ negativeFalseTests



{True, True, True, True, True, True}


{False, False, False, False, False}



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