Skip to main content

replacement - Pattern does not match with Orderless head



Why does the following pattern matching not succeed?


ClearAll[f];
SetAttributes[f,Orderless];
HoldForm[f[a,d[],b,c]]/.HoldPattern[f[a,d[],b,z_]]:>{z}
(* f[a,d[],b,c] *)

I expected that because f is Orderless, the pattern matcher should try all possible orders of arguments and find a match.


If the expression is not held, I find:


ClearAll[f];
SetAttributes[f,Orderless];

f[a,d[],b,c]/.HoldPattern[f[a,d[],b,z_]]:>{z}
(* {c} *)

I.e. the desired result. I know that because f is Orderless and the expression is evaluated, the arguments are sorted into canonical order a, b, c, d[]. It would appear in this case that the pattern matcher really does try all possible orders of arguments to find a match.


Why doesn't it work in the first example?


EDIT:


Here are some further examples:


ClearAll[f];
SetAttributes[f, Orderless];


Hold[f[a, b, c, d[]]] /. HoldPattern[f[a, b, c, z_]] :> {"Matched", {z}}
(* Hold[{"Matched", {d[]}}] *)

Hold[f[a, b, c[], d]] /. HoldPattern[f[a, b, c[], z_]] :> {"Matched", {z}}
(* Hold[{"Matched", {d}}] *)

Hold[f[a, b[], c, d]] /. HoldPattern[f[a, b[], c, z_]] :> {"Matched", {z}}
(* Hold[f[a, b[], c, d]] *)

Hold[f[a[], b, c, d]] /. HoldPattern[f[a[], b, c, z_]] :> {"Matched", {z}}

(* Hold[f[a[], b, c, d]] *)

This seems very inconsistent to me; how can I understand what is happening here?


EDIT:


An illuminating example:


Hold[f[a, c, b[], d]] /. HoldPattern[f[a, b[], c, z_]] :> {"Matched", {z}}
(* Hold[{"Matched", {d}}] *)

The Trace shows no argument reordering, but it appears that the pattern matcher must actually be reordering the pattern to (the canonical order) f[a, c, b[], z_] because f is Orderless, even though HoldPattern should prevent "regular" evaluation.


What remains confusing is what exactly is meant by "In matching patterns with Orderless functions, all possible orders of arguments are tried." in the documentation. On face value, the four examples shown above contradict this.




Answer



I am betting that this is almost certainly an optimization short-cut. If Orderless had to try every ordering it would be extremely slow when there are a moderate number of arguments, but it is not.


Consider for example:


f @@@ Hold @@ {RandomSample[Range@12]}
Hold @@ {f @@ Range@12 /. {7 -> _}}
MatchQ[%%, %]


Hold[f[2, 6, 11, 7, 12, 10, 4, 1, 3, 5, 8, 9]]


Hold[f[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, _]]

False

This test is surely not performing 479,001,600 comparisons, one for each permutation. Instead I suppose that pattern matching assumes that arguments of Orderless heads will first be placed in order and applies logic accordingly.


Since the first two of your "further examples" match I also suppose that this is because the sorted order of arguments on the RHS matches the verbatim order on the left; perhaps this case is tried first.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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