Skip to main content

list manipulation - Why is there a difference when formulating patterns for Select and FirstPosition?


Select[{1, 2, 4, 7, 6, 2}, # > 2 &]

Gives {4, 7, 6}. OK!



So one should think that the following would work:


myList = {-2, -1, 0, 1, 2};
FirstPosition[myList, # > 0 &]

But this fails. The correct command is


myList = {-2, -1, 0, 1, 2};
FirstPosition[myList, _?(# > 0 &)]

But why on earth do we have to use different syntax for those two cases??? Why is the _? necessary?


As it was commented by MarcoB:



Select takes a criterion function, while FirstPosition takes a pattern instead.


Can someone give a for dummies explanation what is the difference between both? Literally I would say a criterion is a pattern and a pattern is a criterion...



Answer



This question might end up closed as it is hard to know what was in the minds of the language designers in every case. However I think a reasonable answer can be given here so I shall try.


The high-level Mathematica language is arguably built on pattern matching. It it therefore natural that many functions also use, operate on, or work with patterns. For example Cases, Count, Position, Replace, Switch, Collect, Reap and standard definitions all natively use patterns. Patterns allow a generally way to express a specification.


Since one can make any Boolean test function into a pattern using PatternTest or Condition these may be considered a subset of pattern matching however they have their own benefits and conventions:




  • They are easily applicable in a procedural style of programming, e.g. they fit naturally into constructs like If, Which, etc.





  • They combine with Boolean operators such as And, Or, Xor, Not, etc.




Since Mathematica uses a multi-paradigm language it is entirely reasonable for it to have functions dedicated to the use of Boolean test functions as well as its own pattern matching. Select is one such function. Note that it lacks the levelspec of the more general Cases which I believe is in keeping with the style of programming it is primarily intended for. It should be thought of as a specialized function. Your question could perhaps be recast as "Why isn't there a "BooleanPosition" function?" With the explosion of functions in recent versions I would not be surprised if one appears, but really it is not necessary as it could be simply constructed from the existing Position function.


In summary patterns and Boolean test functions coexist in Mathematica; it is up to the user to choose the programming style and supporting functions that suit him and his application.


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....