Skip to main content

language design - Why does `Position` by default return a list of lists of positions instead of a simple list of positions?


Position[{1,2,3,4,2,3,4,5},2]
(* Output: {{2},{5}} *)


Why does Position work this way? I understand this form might be appropriate for, say, different levelspecs or perhaps other options, but I feel this behavior being default, especially for such a simple example as above, would be unexpected by newcomers.


I'm currently doing [[All,1]] to get the list I want, but I'm still curious.



Answer



It returns standard position specifications that can be used directly with other functions such as Extract.


Position specifications work with expressions deeper than a list (e.g. matrix, ragged list, or any arbitrary expression). In this case they must contain more than one index. Thus they take the form of a list.


Standard position specifications are used at least with Extract, MapAt, ReplacePart and Position. In the general case these functions handle lists of position specifications. Since position specifications themselves are lists too, it is important to be able to distinguish between a single position specification or a list of them. Thus it is absolutely necessary that even one-index one are a (single element) list. Otherwise {1,2} would be ambiguous: it could represent a single position specification with two indices, or a list of two one-index position specifications.


Having a consistent standard form for position specifications is thus useful and makes it easy to write general code that works fine in edge cases too.


Of course you are right that having {k} instead of k for the most common use case seems inconvenient. I believe that is one reason why we also have Part in addition to extract. Part uses a different syntax for part specifications and is more convenient for standard array indexing.


In general, you would use Part when indexing directly, and you would use Extract with the output of Position.



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.