Skip to main content

evaluation - Built-in symbols which are more close to the root/core of Wolfram Language


Seeing the vast scope of science covered by the Wolfram Language (WL) and the large amount of built-in symbols (functions), I am curious to know which built-in symbols are more close to the root of WL, i.e., they are wired deeper in the kernel and are less easily bypassed by tricks.


For example, when assigning UpValues the assignment tag should be at level no deeper than 2. If we make an assignment like


Clear[f,g,tag,fg]

tag/:f[g[tag]]:=fg[tag]

a warning message is displaced as



TagSetDelayed::tagpos: "Tag tag in f[g[tag]] is too deep for an assigned rule to be found."



and the evaluation returns $Failed, because the tag is at level 3.


However, there are some built-in symbols which are not restricted by the level-2-requirement:


list = {HoldPattern, ReleaseHold, Unevaluated, Evaluate,
Refresh, Activate, IgnoringInactive};

Map[(tag /: f[#[tag]] := #) &, list];

In this code the tag is at level 3, however all assignments can be made successfully without generating error message.


Even at level 4 there is no error message for some combinations:


Map[(tag /: f[#[[1]]@#[[2]]@tag] := #) &, Tuples[list, 2]]

For example, this assignment is successful,


tag /: f[Evaluate@HoldPattern@tag] := tag

It appears that the built-in symbols in list are not considered as normal wrapper. Some of these symbols are also less easily bypassed by using tricks like assigning UpValues, for instance,



tag /: HoldPattern[tag[x_]] := x;
HoldPattern[tag[_]]

which still returns



HoldPattern[tag[_]]



It is reasonable that, out of the thousands of built-in symbols, some of them are more fundamental and the others are built basing on the fundamental ones. Can we find out these fundamental symbols? So we can at least know a bit more about the mystery behind the veil.




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.