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

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more

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.
Post a Comment
Read more