Skip to main content

Why doesn't repeated PatternSequence work with explicit pattern names?


Why would this work:


Clear[f]

f[a : PatternSequence[b_, c_]] := {a};
f[1, 2]
(* {1, 2} *)

and this also works:


Clear[f]
f[a : PatternSequence[_, _] ..] := {a};
f[1, 2, 3, 4]
(* {1, 2, 3, 4} *)


but this does not work?


Clear[f]
f[a : PatternSequence[b_, c_] ..] := {a};
f[1, 2, 3, 4]
(* f[1, 2, 3, 4] *)



Edit: Now that @RunnyKine's answer and @kguler's comment have perfectly answered my original question, I have another related question: is there a pattern-based way that I could extract the first element of the repeated pattern sequence without doing this?


Clear[fNew]
fNew[a : PatternSequence[_, _] ..] := Partition[{a}, 2][[All, 1]]

fNew[1, 2, 3, 4]
(* {1, 3} *)

Answer



This has nothing to do with PatternSequence rather the problem is with how you use Repeated (..). Take for example the following function definition:


f[x : {{_, _} ..}] := Norm[N[x]]

Now if we feed it the following input:


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

The function works as expected and yields:



4.07914333

Now let's redefine the function as follows (we use g instead)


g[x : {{a_, b_} ..}] := Norm[N[x]]

Now notice it looks just like f above but we've introduced the pattern objects a_ and b_


We feed it the same input as above:


g[{{1, 1}, {1, 2}, {1, 3}}]

And we get:



g[{{1, 1}, {1, 2}, {1, 3}}]

Well, strange, nothing happens. No match. Now let's try a different input, one where the first pair is repeated:


g[{{1, 1}, {1, 1}, {1, 1}}]

Now we get:


2.44948974

A different input with the first pair repeated:


g[{{1, 2}, {1, 2}, {1, 2}}]


Yields


3.87298335

So, you see that Repeated works in mysterious ways, well, not really. The point here is that, with no explicit pattern, you get a structural match (for lack of a better term) but with explicit pattern names you have to repeat terms just like the pattern describes. So for your last example, if you do:


f[1, 2, 1, 2]

You get:


{1, 2, 1, 2}


and


f[1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2]

Gives:


{1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2}

As expected.


Comments

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...

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...

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}]