Skip to main content

replacement - Is Replace doing double work?


In an answer to this question, rm -rf used the function Replace with level spefication to do a series of replacements inside out. As far as I can see, the order of substitutions when more than one level is involved is not documented, so I studied this a little bit deeper and constructed the following example for flattening a list, with an administration of the sublists that are replaced.


expr = {1, {2, {4, {5, 6}, {7, 8}}}};
usedsublists = {};
Replace[expr, x : {__} :> (AppendTo[usedsublists, x ]; Sequence @@ x), Infinity] 

usedsublists

(*  {1,2,4,5,6,7,8}  *)

(*  {{5,6},{7,8},{4,5,6,7,8},{5,6},{7,8},{2,4,5,6,7,8},{5,6},{7,8},{4,5,6,7,8},{5,6},{7,8}}  *)

Indeed, Replace works inside out. But it seems that Replace repeats substitutions it has already done for some reason. Do examples exist where this duplication is necessary, or is it a slight inefficiency in the implementation?



Answer



To understand how you end up with a length of 11 for your usedsubsets you must consider not only the traversal order(1)(2)(3) in which the expression is scanned for pattern matching but the evaluation order as well. Much like Map as I summarized in Scan vs. Map vs. Apply Replace does not perform a sequential evaluation* but performs all replacements and then evaluates the entire expression.


If we change the head of your expr to Hold we not only witness the behavior described above but also clear illustration of the source of 11:



expr = Hold[1, {2, {4, {5, 6}, {7, 8}}}];

usedsubsets = {};
Replace[expr, x : {__} :> (AppendTo[usedsubsets, x]; Sequence @@ x), Infinity]


Hold[1, AppendTo[
  usedsubsets, {2, 
   AppendTo[usedsubsets, {4, AppendTo[usedsubsets, {5, 6}]; Sequence @@ {5, 6}, 
     AppendTo[usedsubsets, {7, 8}]; Sequence @@ {7, 8}}]; 

   Sequence @@ {4, AppendTo[usedsubsets, {5, 6}]; Sequence @@ {5, 6}, 
     AppendTo[usedsubsets, {7, 8}]; Sequence @@ {7, 8}}}]; 
 Sequence @@ {2, 
   AppendTo[usedsubsets, {4, AppendTo[usedsubsets, {5, 6}]; Sequence @@ {5, 6}, 
     AppendTo[usedsubsets, {7, 8}]; Sequence @@ {7, 8}}]; 
   Sequence @@ {4, AppendTo[usedsubsets, {5, 6}]; Sequence @@ {5, 6}, 
     AppendTo[usedsubsets, {7, 8}]; Sequence @@ {7, 8}}}]

Lest you think this has anything to do with AppendTo, Sequence, or even CompoundExpression or Hold, here is another more generic example:


Replace[List @@ expr, x : {__} :> f[g[x], h[x]], Infinity]



{1, f[g[{2, 
    f[g[{4, f[g[{5, 6}], h[{5, 6}]], f[g[{7, 8}], h[{7, 8}]]}], 
     h[{4, f[g[{5, 6}], h[{5, 6}]], f[g[{7, 8}], h[{7, 8}]]}]]}], 
  h[{2, f[g[{4, f[g[{5, 6}], h[{5, 6}]], f[g[{7, 8}], h[{7, 8}]]}], 
     h[{4, f[g[{5, 6}], h[{5, 6}]], f[g[{7, 8}], h[{7, 8}]]}]]}]]}

This is merely the result of the "inside-out" replacement you referenced in your question.


*The exception to this statement is the use of either RuleCondition or its more verbose cousin, the Trott-Strzebonski in-place evaluation technique. These cause early evaluation of the RHS of the rules, after pattern substitution but before replacement in the main expression.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more