Skip to main content

programming - Prevent iterator name from being confused with symbol passed into function body


I have a massive amount of code with lots of Table and Sum inside a Module. Each with their own iterators, and I have completely lost track of all of them. But if the user calls the function with an argument matching the name of the iterator, the code no long works as intended.


An example is this function that is supposed to return a list of three repeated symbols:



function[x_] := 
Module[{},
answer = Table[x, {i, 1, 3}];
Return[answer];
]

For example:


function[a]
(*{a,a,a}*)


But this can be broken by


function[i]
(*{1,2,3}*)

Obviously, Table is confusing the input x=i with its own iterator i. What is the fool-proof fix for this? Is there a solution without:




  1. Finding the names of all the iterators and listing them all as private variables inside Module?





  2. Finding all the iterators and renaming them longAndComplicated1, longAndComplicated2, etc.?





Answer



Make use of Module's capability to localize variables.


f[x_] := Module[{i}, Table[x, {i, 1, 3}]]
f[i]


{i, i, i}


Also, with i localized, you don't need to use distinct iterator names in different iteration constructs.


g[x_] :=
Module[{i, a, b},
a = Table[x, {i, 3}];
b = Table[x^3, {i, 2}];
{a, b}]
{g[i], g[a], g[b]}



{{{i, i, i}, {i^3, i^3}}, 
{{a, a, a}, {a^3, a^3}},
{{b, b, b}, {b^3, b^3}}

Further, note that you don't need to use Return if you use the semicolon ( ; ) operator properly. (Yes, semicolon is an operator in Mathematica, not a terminator.) See this answer for more information on the semicolon operator. Actually, it likely you will benefit from all answers given on the page I have linked to.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 - 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 - 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.