Skip to main content

How to do Cases with multiple related patterns?



I would like to write a function similar to Cases, but can search for a group of related patterns together. For example,


casesList[f[x] g[x] + f[y] + g[y]/f[z], {f[a_], g[a_]}]


{{f[x], g[x]}, {f[y], g[y]}}



By "related patterns", I mean that in the above example a_ matches the same x for both f and g at the first list, and matches y at the second list.


Note that here the input {f[a_], g[a_]} could be any other patterns. As another example,


caseList[D[f[x,y],x] + D[f[x,y],y] + D[g[x,y],x] + D[g[x,y],y],
{D[f_[x_,y_],x_], D[f_[x_,y_],y_]}]



{{Derivative[1, 0][f][x, y], Derivative[0, 1][f][x, y]}, {Derivative[1, 0][g][x, y], Derivative[0, 1][g][x, y]}}



Is there a simple way to do this? Thanks!


EDIT: To further clarify the question, I'd like to compare the situation with Cases for a list. For example,


Cases[{{f[a], f[b]}, {f[c], f[c]}}, {f[a_], f[a_]}, Infinity]


{{f[c], f[c]}}




Cases[{{f[c], f[c]}}, {f[a_], f[b_]}, Infinity]


{{f[c], f[c]}}



In the above two examples, Cases does exactly what I want. However, more generally the expressions which match f[a_] does not necessarily stays in a list structure, but rather may be at elsewhere in the expression. This is the major difficulty I met.



Answer



I'm not entirely sure whether this is right and works correctly, but the following could be an idea for a general rule-based approach. The idea is to use Cases to extract all matching expression separately for the given list of patterns. Let me illustrate this by your simple f example


expr = f[x] g[x] + f[y] + g[y]/f[z];


Cases[expr, #, Infinity, Heads -> True] & /@ {f[a_], g[a_]}
(* {{f[y], f[x], f[z]}, {g[x], g[y]}} *)

Now we have two result lists where all in the first list match f[a_] and all in the second list match g[a_]. Having this, the next step is kind of obvious: We need a replacement rule, where the a_ will match the same in both patterns. Given our result, this should be an easy rule of the following form


{{___,f[a_],___},{___,g[a_],___}} :> {f[a], g[a]}

The only tedious work is to build this rule from the input pattern list {f[a_], g[a_]}. Let's assume we have already build this, then we can use ReplaceList to get all possibilities


ReplaceList[{{f[y], f[x], f[z]}, {g[x], 
g[y]}}, {{___, f[a_], ___}, {___, g[a_], ___}} :> {f[a], g[a]}]

(* {{f[y], g[y]}, {f[x], g[x]}} *)

Looks OK for me. With this in mind, we can write our CasesList combining all ideas. Here you see how the last replacement rule is built automatically


CasesList[expr_, pattern_List] := 
With[{cases = Cases[expr, #, Infinity, Heads -> True] & /@ pattern,
ruleLHS = {___, #, ___} & /@ pattern,
ruleRHS = pattern /. Verbatim[Pattern][arg_, ___] :> arg
},
ReplaceList[cases, ruleLHS :> ruleRHS]
]


Now, let's try this with your second example


CasesList[D[f[x,y],x]+D[f[x,y],y]+D[g[x,y],x]+D[g[x,y],y],
{D[f_[x_,y_],x_],D[f_[x_,y_],y_]}]


{{Derivative[1, 0][f][x, y], Derivative[0, 1][f][x, y]}, {Derivative[1, 0][g][x, y], Derivative[0, 1][g][x, y]}}



Comments

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...

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...

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...