Skip to main content

matrix - How can I reproduce the MatrixForm, NumberForm, XyzForm behavior?



I wish to write a function like MatrixForm, that affect only display but not evaluation, i.e. a function that automatically is stripped away from output.


More precisely I wish a MatrixForm-variant that collect the LCM of the denominators of the elements of the matrix out of the matrix.


Is this possible?


I think Interpretation, Defer, etc. combined with Row, MatrixForm doesn't fill exactly this need. This is the best I did.


PrettyMatrixForm[
m_ /; VectorQ[m, NumericQ] \[Or] MatrixQ[m, NumericQ]] :=
With[{lcm = LCM @@ (Denominator /@ Flatten[m])},
If[lcm === 1, MatrixForm[m],
With[{mm = m*lcm},
Interpretation[Row[{1/lcm, " \[Times] ", MatrixForm[mm]}], m]]

]]

PrettyMatrixForm[{{1/2, 1/4}, {2, 1/3}}]

EDIT. I wish to be able to write and evaluate something linke this in a cell, as I can do with MatrixForm.


{{1/2, 1/4}, {2, 1/3}} //PrettyMatrixForm
% * 2

EDIT 2 To be even more clear, I wish to reproduce this behavior of Mathematica Kernel.


In[1]:= MatrixForm[{{a,b},{c,d}}]


Out[1]//MatrixForm= a b

c d

In[2]:= Out[1]

Out[2]= {{a, b}, {c, d}}

As you can see the Kernel show Out[1]//MatrixForm i.e. MatrixForm[Out[1]] but store in Out[1] only the list {{a,b},{c,d}}. This happens for all XyzForm-like symbols, and obviously happens also in the Mathematica Front-End.




Answer



UPDATE


Nice work, OP, with $OutputForms. I did not know about that. Here is my take on a complete solution that takes advantage of that find, and adds input handling with MakeExpression. I can't think of a situation in which this would be superior to InterpretationBox for this problem, but it is helpful in more complex cases.


If[
FreeQ[$OutputForms, pm = PrettyMatrixForm],
Unprotect@$OutputForms;
AppendTo[$OutputForms, pm];
Protect@$OutputForms];

MakeBoxes[

PrettyMatrixForm[m_ /;
MatrixQ[m, ExactNumberQ] \[Or]
VectorQ[m, ExactNumberQ]], form_] ^:=
With[
{lcm = LCM @@ (Denominator /@ Flatten@m)},
If[
lcm === 1,
MakeBoxes[MatrixForm@m, form],
TagBox[RowBox[
Riffle[

MakeBoxes[#, form] & /@ {1/lcm, MatrixForm[m*lcm]},
"\[Times]"]],
"PrettyMatrix"]]];

MakeExpression[
TagBox[RowBox[{
c_,
"\[Times]",
m_
}], "PrettyMatrix"], form_] :=

MakeExpression[RowBox[{c, " ", m}], form];

PrettyMatrixForm[{{1/2, 1/4}, {2, 1/3}}]
%


{{1/2, 1/4}, {2, 1/3}}



(Notice, however, that PrettyMatrixForm only gets stripped when boxes are actually generated. The same code with a ; after the fist line will behave differently. This is the same as MatrixForm.)


If you copy the PrettyMatrixForm output into a new cell and evaluate it, it will be rearranged before evaluation.




{{1/2, 1/4}, {2, 1/3}}



ORIGINAL POST


The FrontEnd uses a system of boxes to represent expressions. Try typing this into a cell and then hitting Ctrl+Shift+E:


matrix = {{a, b}, {c, d}};
matrix // ToBoxes


Cell[BoxData[ RowBox[{"{", RowBox[{ RowBox[{"{", RowBox[{"a", ",", "b"}], "}"}], ",", RowBox[{"{", RowBox[{"c", ",", "d"}], "}"}]}], "}"}]], "Output", CellChangeTimes->{3.613237646690503*^9}]




You can hit the same key combination to close that view. This is what's going on under the hood, and Mathematica uses a variety of mechanisms to translate between what you're seeing in the two different views -- that is, between boxes and expressions. This can happen at every layer of evaluation subject to complex rules that are not important here. In general those rules will operate the way they intuitively ought to.


We can see how an expression is translated into boxes using ToBoxes:


matrix // ToBoxes


RowBox[{{,RowBox[{RowBox[{{,RowBox[{a,,,b}],}}],,,RowBox[{{,RowBox[{c,,,d}],}}]}],}}]



Likewise, we can go the other direction:


% // ToExpression



{{a, b}, {c, d}}



Boxes are symbolically much more complex than their corresponding expressions, which is one reason they are stripped as part of evaluation:


% // (tf = TreeForm[#, VertexLabeling -> False] &)

enter image description here


%%% // tf


enter image description here


MatrixForm changes the box structure:


matrix // MatrixForm // ToBoxes


TagBox[RowBox[{(,,GridBox[{{a,b},{c,d}},RowSpacings->1,ColumnSpacings->1,RowAlignments->Baseline,ColumnAlignments->Center],,)}],Function[BoxForme$,BoxForme$]]



And Mathematica has built-in rules that tell it to interpret this box pattern correctly:


% // ToExpression



{{a, b}, {c, d}}



I mentioned that this transformation is part of the evaluation procedure. ToBoxes and ToExpression transform and evaluate, which is usually what we want. At a lower level, however, you can also specify how Mathematica should transform box structures before evaluation. This enables you to rearrange these structures and define forms of notational equivalence. Compare:


1 + 2 // ToBoxes


3



1 + 2 // MakeBoxes



RowBox[{"1", "+", "2"}]



Similarly,


RowBox[{"1", "+", "2"}] // ToExpression


3




RowBox[{"1", "+", "2"}] // MakeExpression


HoldComplete[1 + 2]



MakeBoxes will be applied whenever an expression is "rendered" in the FrontEnd, and Mathematica allows us to override arbitrary patterns. So we'll do:


MakeBoxes[PrettyMatrixForm[m_], form_] ^:=
With[
{lcm = LCM @@ (Denominator /@ Flatten@m)},
If[

lcm === 1,
ToBoxes@MatrixForm@m,
RowBox[ToBoxes /@ {1/lcm, "\[Times]", MatrixForm[m*lcm]}]]];

matrix = {{1/2, 1/4}, {2, 1/3}};
matrix // PrettyMatrixForm


enter image description here




We have only altered how this expression is rendered into boxes:


% // InputForm


PrettyMatrixForm[{{1/2, 1/4}, {2, 1/3}}]



For complicated cases you could define a corresponding set of rules using MakeExpression, but I think this situation can be handled more simply:


PrettyMatrixForm /: head_[left___, PrettyMatrixForm[m_], right___] := 
head[left, m, right];


matrix // PrettyMatrixForm;
%^2


{{1/4, 1/16}, {4, 1/9}}



% // PrettyMatrixForm


enter image description here




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[ ...

equation solving - Invert and fit implicitly defined curve

I need to fit an implicitly defined curve. I thought I could get some data out of Solve , and then using FindFit . Therefore, I would like to find the relation the parametric curve defined by $F(x,y)=0$: Solve[-(1/2) + 1/2 (0.41202 BesselK[0, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]] + (0.101483 x BesselK[1, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]])/Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]) == 0, y] But I can't get an output: Solve was unable to solve the system with inexact coefficients or the system obtained by direct rationalization of inexact numbers present in the system. Since many of the methods used by Solve require exact input, providing Solve with an exact version of the system may help. >> Edit: In particular, I would like to fit the data coming from the curve with the expression of another curve, and not with a function $f(x)$. In particular, since this clearly looks like a cardioid , I would like it to fit to something like it. What other strategies could I try?

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...