Skip to main content

interactive - Get a "step-by-step" evaluation in Mathematica


Is it possible in Mathematica to get a step-by-step evaluation of some functions; that's to say, outputting not only the result but all the stages that have led to it? If so, how does one do it?


Example : Let's say I want to know the steps to get the derivative of $\cos x\times\exp x$; it should first tell me that it's equal to $\frac{d}{dx}(\exp x)\times\cos x+\exp x \times \frac{d}{dx}(\cos x)$ and then render the result to say $\exp{x}\times(\cos x-\sin x)$.



Answer




For differentiation at least, old versions of Mathematica had a demonstration function called WalkD[] that holds your hand and shows what is done at each stage up until the final answer.


In general, however...



You should realize at the outset that while knowing about the internals of Mathematica may be of intellectual interest, it is usually much less important in practice than you might at first suppose.


Indeed, one of the main points of Mathematica is that it provides an environment where you can perform mathematical and other operations without having to think in detail about how these operations are actually carried out inside your computer.


...


Particularly in more advanced applications of Mathematica, it may sometimes seem worthwhile to try to analyze internal algorithms in order to predict which way of doing a given computation will be the most efficient. And there are indeed occasionally major improvements that you will be able to make in specific computations as a result of such analyses.


But most often the analyses will not be worthwhile. For the internals of Mathematica are quite complicated, and even given a basic description of the algorithm used for a particular purpose, it is usually extremely difficult to reach a reliable conclusion about how the detailed implementation of this algorithm will actually behave in particular circumstances.


A typical problem is that Mathematica has many internal optimizations, and the efficiency of a computation can be greatly affected by whether the details of the computation do or do not allow a given internal optimization to be used.




Put another way: how Mathematica does things doesn't necessarily correspond to "manual" methods.




Here's my modest attempt to (somewhat) modernize WalkD[]:


Format[d[f_, x_], TraditionalForm] := DisplayForm[RowBox[{FractionBox["\[DifferentialD]",
RowBox[{"\[DifferentialD]", x}]], f}]];

SpecificRules = {d[(f_)[u___, x_, v___], x_] /;
FreeQ[{u}, x] && FreeQ[{v}, x] :> D[f[u, x, v], x],
d[(a_)^(x_), x_] :> D[a^x, x] /; FreeQ[a, x]};


ConstantRule = d[c_, x_] :> 0 /; FreeQ[c, x];

LinearityRule = {d[f_ + g_, x_] :> d[f, x] + d[g, x],
d[c_ f_, x_] :> c d[f, x] /; FreeQ[c, x]};

PowerRule = {d[x_, x_] :> 1, d[(x_)^(a_), x_] :> a*x^(a - 1) /; FreeQ[a, x]};

ProductRule = d[f_ g_, x_] :> d[f, x] g + f d[g, x];

QuotientRule = d[(f_)/(g_), x_] :> (d[f, x]*g - f*d[g, x])/g^2;


InverseFunctionRule = d[InverseFunction[f_][x_], x_] :>
1/f'[InverseFunction[f][x]];

ChainRule = {d[(f_)^(a_), x_] :> a*f^(a - 1)*d[f, x] /; FreeQ[a, x],
d[(a_)^(f_), x_] :> Log[a]*a^f*d[f, x] /; FreeQ[a, x],
d[(f_)[g__], x_] /; ! FreeQ[{g}, x] :>
(Derivative[##][f][g] & @@@ IdentityMatrix[Length[{g}]]).(d[#, x] & /@ {g}),
d[(f_)^(g_), x_] :> f^g*d[g*Log[f], x]};


$RuleNames = {"Specific Rules", "Constant Rule", "Linearity Rule", "Power Rule",
"Product Rule", "Quotient Rule", "Inverse Function Rule", "Chain Rule"};

displayStart[expr_] := CellPrint[
Cell[BoxData[MakeBoxes[HoldForm[expr], TraditionalForm]], "Output",
Evaluatable -> False, CellMargins -> {{Inherited, Inherited}, {10, 10}},
CellFrame -> False, CellEditDuplicate -> False]]

displayDerivative[expr_, k_Integer] := CellPrint[
Cell[BoxData[TooltipBox[RowBox[{InterpretationBox["=", Sequence[]], " ",

MakeBoxes[HoldForm[expr], TraditionalForm]}], $RuleNames[[k]],
LabelStyle -> "TextStyling"]], "Output", Evaluatable -> False,
CellMargins -> {{Inherited, Inherited}, {10, 10}},
CellFrame -> False, CellEditDuplicate -> False]]

WalkD[f_, x_] := Module[{derivative, oldderivative, k},
derivative = d[f, x]; displayStart[derivative];
While[! FreeQ[derivative, d],
oldderivative = derivative; k = 0;
While[oldderivative == derivative,

k++;
derivative = derivative /.
ToExpression[StringReplace[$RuleNames[[k]], " " -> ""]]];
displayDerivative[derivative, k]];
D[f, x]]

I've tried to make the formatting of the derivative look a bit more traditional, as well as having the differentiation rule used be a tooltip instead of an explicitly generated cell (thus combining the best features of WalkD[] and RunD[]); you'll only see the name of the differentiation rule used if you mouseover the corresponding expression.


WalkD[] demonstration


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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}]

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1....