Skip to main content

plotting - Problems with region-related functions


For a demonstration project, I am calculating certain geometric properties of a region (an isosceles triangle in this example), as follows:


baseshape = SASTriangle[2, Pi/6, 2];
cbs0 = RegionCentroid[baseshape];
baseshape = TransformedRegion[baseshape, TranslationTransform[-cbs0]];

This calculates the centroid, and moves the region so its centroid is at the origin. Now I am going to rotate the region, move it down by depth, and define the part of the region that lies below y=0 as a new region, as follows:


rrs[\[Theta]_?NumericQ, depth_?NumericQ] := 

  RegionIntersection[
   TransformedRegion[
    TransformedRegion[baseshape, RotationTransform[\[Theta]]], 
    TranslationTransform[{0, -depth}]], 
   ImplicitRegion[y <= 0, {x, y}]];

However, I get an error message when I try to plot this:


Plot[Area[rrs[0, depth]], {depth, -0.7, 1.4}]

Area::reg: rrs(0,d,{0,0}) is not a correctly specified region.


The plot looks fine, but I don't understand the reason for the error message. What am I missing?



Answer



The error comes from the evaluation of Area[rrs[0, depth]] with the non-evaluated symbol depth:


Plot[Area[rrs[0, Echo@depth]], {depth, -0.6, -0.5}, 
     PlotPoints -> 2, MaxRecursion -> 1]

>> -0.6
>> -0.5999
>> depth

Area::reg: rrs[0,depth] is not a correctly specified region.
>> -0.6
>> -0.5
>> -0.55

(* plot displayed *)

This symbolic evaluation happens as part of the detection of exclusions. You can avoid it by setting the option Exclusions to None:


Plot[Area[rrs[0, Echo@depth]], {depth, -0.6, -0.5}, 
     PlotPoints -> 2, MaxRecursion -> 1, Exclusions -> None]


>> -0.6
>> -0.5999
>> -0.6
>> -0.5
>> -0.55

(* plot displayed *)

Note that Plot has the default value Exclusions -> Automatic, which is effectively equivalent to Exclusions -> All when the option PerformanceGoal is Quality (see Exclusions ref page),



Options[Plot, "PerformanceGoal"]
(* {PerformanceGoal :> $PerformanceGoal} *)

$PerformanceGoal
(* "Quality" *)

so another way to get rid of the message is to set PerformanceGoal to another value:


Plot[Area[rrs[0, Echo@depth]], {depth, -0.6, -0.5}, 
     PlotPoints -> 2, MaxRecursion -> 1, PerformanceGoal -> "Speed"]


>> -0.6
>> -0.5999
>> -0.6
>> -0.5
>> -0.55

(* plot displayed *)

This last approach may be more interesting if you want to process excluded regions with ExclusionsStyle (in this case the value of Exclusions should not be Automatic, and needs to be set to another value --- for instance True or All).


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