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

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

list manipulation - Selecting multiple columns from a matrix?

Sample data: data = { {{2013, 1, 1}, 24.13, 167.67, 231.82}, {{2013, 1, 2}, 32.15, 170.92, 225.99}, {{2013, 1, 3}, 35.43, 172.68, 221.67}, {{2013, 1, 4}, 36.73, 173.05, 218.32}, {{2013, 1, 5}, 58.19, 165.96, 197.05}, {{2013, 1, 6}, 69.99, 163.50, 187.52}, {{2013, 1, 7}, 71.37, 154.21, 175.58}, {{2013, 1, 8}, 72.51, 149.66, 163.25}}; I want a DateListPlot with three graphs, so for a matrix formed by columns 1 and 2, one for columns 1 and 3, and 1 for columns 1 and 4. At the moment I'm using this code: data2 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 2]]}]; data3 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 3]]}]; data4 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 4]]}]; DateListPlot[{data2, data3, data4}, Joined -> True, Filling -> {3 -> {1}}] but I have a hunch that this can be done more efficiently. I don't like the Transpose s in particular. Any ideas? edit (for extra credit) What if I need to multiply the second column by 2, which in my solution is simp...

plotting - How to draw some 2D curves in a 3D plot?

I want to plot several 2D curves ( Sin[x] at y=0 , Cos[x] at y=1 ) in a 3D plot, what function should i use? f[x_, y_] := Piecewise[{{0, y 0}, {Sin[x], y == 0}}] g[x_, y_] := Piecewise[{{0, y 1}, {Cos[x], y == 1}}] Plot3D[{f[x, y], g[x, y]}, {x, 0, 10}, {y, 0, 10}] doesn't work. Any ideas? Answer ParametricPlot3D[{{Sin[u], 0, u}, {Cos[u], 1, u}}, {u, 0, 20}, BoxRatios -> 1, PlotRange -> {{-2, 2}, {-.5, 2}, {0, 20}}] === update - general thoughts === I've seen the comments to this question and a few other approaches to the waterfall (or wire) plot are given in this question: Plotting several functions . Also I cannot not mention one of my favorite Mathematica blogs - Archery with this post on the story of discovery of 1st pulsar and an its infamous graphics - code is given in the post: