Skip to main content

expression test - ValueQ returns false positive for one argument type only


I'm seeing some perplexing behavior from ValueQ in 10.3. Consider:


f[r_List, n_Integer] := r^n;
ValueQ[f[{}, 1]]

(* ==> True *)


ValueQ[f[{}, 0.3]]

(* ==> False *)

ValueQ[f[{}, \[Pi]]]

(* ==> False *)

ValueQ[f[{a, b, c}, 3/2]]


(* ==> True *) (* THIS IS UNEXPECTED *)

f[{1,2,3}, 3/2]

(* ==> f[{1,2,3}, 3/2] *)

What I expect is that any ValueQ call that has an argument list that matches the types in the function definition's pattern -- and therefore could be transformed by the rule associated with that definition -- will return True. Any call with an argument list having different types will return False. As I understand it, what ValueQ does is test whether a rule exists that would transform its argument.


And that's what happens, EXCEPT for the final case, in which a {List,Rational} slips through when only a {List,Integer} should. ValueQ returns True. And yet, if I actually evaluate that function with those arguments, no transformation occurs, because (of course) no appropriate rule exists.


It seems that ValueQ is simply failing. Is this a bug, or do I fail to understand some subtlety here?




Answer



Well, the documentation of ValueQ states



ValueQ gives False only if expr would not change if it were to be entered as Wolfram Language input.



This explains pretty much everything you are experiencing. Very easy example:


Hold[1/2]//FullForm
(* Hold[Times[1,Power[2,-1]]] *)

You see that you enter 1/2 as a multiplication but what if we don't hold it? See what happens:



1/2//FullForm
(* Rational[1,2] *)

The expression changes into something different. Therefore, you should be able to guess the answer of


ValueQ[1/2]

without evaluating it. And indeed, using the PrintDefinitions[ValueQ] function (I saw it in the Trace) from the < package in version 10 shows you that ValueQ for general expressions like yours does nothing more than


ValueQ[expr_] := !Hold[Evaluate[expr]] === Hold[expr];

So it compares the completely evaluated form of your f[...] call, with the held one. So even if your pattern does not match, as long as anything changes in the expression, the result will be True.



So one solution for you is simply, to prevent this behavior by evaluating the arguments of f before feeding it to ValueQ. I'm not completely sure about all consequences, but it seems in your situation this could be what you want:


SetAttributes[valueQ, {HoldFirst}];
valueQ[h_[args__]] := With[{eval = args},
  ValueQ @@ (HoldComplete[eval] /. Sequence :> h)
]

f[r_List, n_Integer] := r^n;
valueQ[f[{},1]]
valueQ[f[{},0.3]]
valueQ[f[{},Ï€]]

valueQ[f[{a,b,c},3/2]]
(* True *)
(* False *)
(* False *)
(* False *)

A different, but similar way is to define your valueQ in the same manner as the real ValueQ:


valueQ2[h_[args___]] := With[{eval = args},
  ! Hold[Evaluate[h[args]]] === (Hold[eval] /. Hold[expr___] :> Hold[f[expr]])
]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more