variable definitions - `Quit` vs `ClearAll["Global`*"]`

Quit erases all the definitions (by quitting the kernel), but so does ClearAll["Global`*"] (or other contexts). What's the difference in terms of variables in the notebook?

Answer

There are significant practical differences.

Quit does not "clear" anything, it instead restarts the kernel, i.e. resets it to the default state. There is a lot of internal state that changes during the session in ways that are different from creating new symbols or attaching definitions. So simply clearing (or removing) symbols won't reset the kernel. Examples include:

When you load a package, it does not only create its own context, it also causes $Context and $Packages to be modified

Symbolic results are cached (ClearSystemCache) and will actually cause symbolic processing functions to return different results than they would in a fresh session.

$ModuleNumber changes

Directory[] changes

pseudo-random number generator states change (and this also involves caching behind the scenes, which in principle affects memory usage)

Logins to various services (e.g. SocialMediaData) may be remembered until the end of the session

In/Out/$Line change

Parallel kernels keep running, ParallelNeeds keeps remembering "needed" packages, DistributeDefinitions keeps remembering what was distributed

A fresh kernel doesn't have all symbol definitions loaded. Using various symbols triggers loading definition and triggers loading packages.

etc.

These are just a few random but concrete examples that came to mind. This list is not at all meant to be exhaustive, it is simply to illustrate how many things get modified during a session. There are many more than these, very likely including many which concern the internal workings of Mathematica and we don't even know about (as they are not publicly documented).

This is all in addition to the difference between Remove and ClearAll which people mentioned in the comments and which is also significant (e.g. ClearAll won't help with shadowing but Remove will).

In short, if you are having trouble with Mathematica, reset if fully by restarting the kernel, don't just clear your own definitions.

Comments

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.

Blog

Search This Blog