Skip to main content

replacement - Why does an inert ReplaceAll modify this Dataset?


I cannot see any reason for this behavior besides a bug, but I've been wrong before so I put it before the community:


ds = Dataset[{

<|"ID" -> "Alpha", "v1" -> 1, "v2" -> 0|>,
<|"ID" -> "Beta" , "v1" -> 1, "v2" -> 1|>,
<|"ID" -> "Alpha", "v1" -> 1, "v2" -> 0|>}];

ds[Select[#"ID" == "Alpha" &], {"ID"}]

% /. {}

enter image description here


The internal structure changed in from:



Dataset[{<|"ID" -> "Alpha"|>, <|"ID" -> "Alpha"|>}, 
TypeSystem`Vector[TypeSystem`Struct[{"ID"}, {TypeSystem`Atom[String]}],
TypeSystem`AnyLength], <|
"Origin" ->
HoldComplete[
Query[Select[#ID == "Alpha" &], {"ID"}][Dataset`DatasetHandle[43190226294398]]],
"ID" -> 96078453577381|>]

To:


Dataset[{<|"ID" -> "Alpha"|>, <|"ID" -> "Alpha"|>}, 

TypeSystem`Vector[TypeSystem`Assoc[TypeSystem`Atom[String], TypeSystem`Atom[String], 1],
2], <|"Origin" -> HoldComplete[Dataset`DatasetHandle[96078453577381] /. {}],
"ID" -> 3384469395109|>]



  1. Why the change?




  2. Why does this change affect the output formatting?






Answer



In the first case, the type of the dataset was deduced via type deduction mechanism applied at Dataset construction. In the second case, it was inferred using a set of type inference rules. The fact that this happens even with inert replacement does not matter: as long as ReplaceAll is used, type of the resulting Dataset is inferred rather than deduced.


In some cases, type inference isn't yet able to do as good a job as type deduction, which results in more generic types. This is what we see here. It may still be considered a bug (Taliesin Beynon is the one to confirm this). As to the output formatting, it is tied to the type of the Dataset. In the first case, it uses specialized formatting rules for type Struct, in the last case - generic formatting for associations.


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.