Skip to main content

dynamic - DynamicModule, SaveDefinitions and global functions



Unfortunately, I had not checked stackoverflow, because there, the exact same behavior was already reported. Please see the Q&A "SaveDefinitions considered dangerous".



Up-front, I'm on Ubuntu 12.04 with Mathematica 9.0.1 and let's start with the questions:




  • Should functions which are used in a Manipulate be local to this dynamic cell, when I save them withSaveDefinitions`?

  • Is it OK, that after a kernel-restart Manipulate defines global functions?


I noticed this behavior a while ago when something did not work as I expected it. Here is a small toy example. First we define a function, which (we assume we don't know this now) is not correct and will be fixed later:


f[x_?NumericQ] := "Wrong Implementation";

Now we make a small dynamic environment where we use this function and we save the definitions used there.


Manipulate[f[x] + x, {x, 0, 1}, SaveDefinitions -> True]

Sliding a bit around gives the correct output:



Mathematica graphics


Now, we notice our error in f, because (let's say) f is going to work even when we don't have numeric values. Therefore, we fix the pattern and evaluate


ClearAll[f]
f[x_] := "Correct Implementation!"

this redefinition is instantly shown in the Manipulate, which is kind of weird, because we explicitly told Mathematica to save the definition and let me cite the documentation: SaveDefinition...



is an option to Manipulate and related functions that specifies whether current definitions relevant for the evaluation of the expression being manipulated should automatically be saved.



Mathematica graphics



There is even more, because when you now Quit[] the kernel and then do nothing else that move the slider, you see that now the first definition is used again and the output changes to "Wrong Implementation". This seems fine, because Manipulate finally remembers what is should have saved.


However, this is not what broke my neck. What really took time to debug was that the wrong definition of f is leaked into the global context:


f[3]

(* "Wrong Implementation" *)

The problem back then, when I had this issue, was that although I evaluated the correct definition,


f[x_] := "Correct Implementation!"

the other one was used, because its pattern was more specific.



f[3]

(* "Wrong Implementation" *)

Any comments?




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

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