Skip to main content

Custom operators; custom pattern matching with pure functions


What I'm trying to achieve in Mathematica is the creation of a binary operator whose operands are both pure functions over the natural numbers. The result of the operator should be another pure function over the natural numbers.


To demonstrate concretely what I want, suppose I have the following functions defined:


f[n_Natural]:=2*n;
g[n_Natural]:=n-1;

(There is no Head called "Natural" so the above pattern matching won't work. But I want f and g to accept only natural numbers. This is problem No. 1 [SOLVED])


I then want a binary operator defined like so:


Needs["Notation`"];

CombinedFunction[f_NaturalFunction,g_NaturalFunction]:={#}/.{{x_Natural}:>f[#]+g[#]}}&;
InfixNotation[ParsedBoxWrapper["\[CirclePlus]"], CombinedFunction];

Operating $f$ $\oplus$ $g$ yields a pure function $h$ that only takes a natural number as an argument. I have found a way of enforcing the domain of $h$ thanks to this thread, but I want to extend this to ensure that $\oplus$ itself is only defined for unary functions over the natural numbers. Seeing as there's no Head like 'NaturalFunction', I don't know how to do this. This is problem No. 2.


As an additional issue, the operator (which currently yields a function defined over the integers) currently gives an unsimplified output:


Needs["Notation`"];
CombinedFunction[f_, g_] := {#} /. {{x_Integer} :> f[x] + g[x]} &;
AddInputAlias["4" -> ParsedBoxWrapper["\[CirclePlus]"]];
InfixNotation[ParsedBoxWrapper["\[CirclePlus]"], CombinedFunction];


f=1&;
g=#&;
h=f\[CirclePlus]g


{#1} /. {{x$_Integer} :> (1 &)[x$] \[LeftRightArrow] (#1 &)[x$]} &

I would have expected the output to be:



(1+#)&


I'm unsure of the inner workings of what I've written so I don't know how to obtain a simplified result. I can now apply $h$ to an integer and it operates as expected. However:


h[3.5]


{3.5}

I want instead Mathematica to behave as if the function was simply undefined for anything but an integer, just as it would do if I defined $h$ like so:


Clear[h]; h[x_Integer]:=x+1;
h[3.5]



h[3.5]


Answer



Without giving this much thought you might proceed as follows:


naturalQ = IntegerQ[#] && Positive[#] &;

You can then define:


fn[n_?naturalQ] := 2*n;


fn /@ {-1, 0, 1}


{fn[-1], fn[0], 2}

For the second problem you might make use of SubValues syntax:


SetAttributes[nFun, HoldAll]

nFun[p_, body_][arg_?naturalQ] := With[{p = arg}, body]


Now:


nFun[x, x^2][8]
nFun[x, 2 x][8]
nFun[x, x+5][8]


64
16
13


You can define CirclePlus directly since it is an operator. You don't need the Notation package. (You can enter the \[CirclePlus] character with Escc+Esc.) Again using SubValues syntax:


CirclePlus[f_nFun, g_nFun][arg_?naturalQ] := f[arg] + g[arg]

Now:


f = nFun[x, x];
g = nFun[x, 1];
h = f \[CirclePlus] g
h[7]



8

This doesn't produce a Function object but perhaps it is sufficient. If it is not acceptable please explain how and why and I shall try again.




Anticipating a possible request, and also offering a variant, here is a method that makes use of Slot notation and yields partial evaluation:


ClearAll[nFun, CirclePlus]

SetAttributes[nFun, HoldFirst]
nFun[body_][arg__?naturalQ] := body &[arg]


CirclePlus[nFun[b1_], nFun[b2_]] := nFun[b1 + b2]

Now:


f = nFun[#];
g = nFun[1];

h = f\[CirclePlus]g
h[7]



nFun[#1 + 1]

8

For complete evaluation of the body you can use nFun @@ {b1 + b2} for the RHS of the second definition.


Comments

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...

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...

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...