I'm running a Table function which will take too much time to complete.
I wanted to know if there's a way to retrieve the results computed so far.
The proposed solution
Here is a version of Table that is Abort-able and will keep the intermediate results collected so far. It is a modified version of the solution posted here.
ClearAll[abortableTable];
SetAttributes[abortableTable, HoldAll];
abortableTable[expr_, iter__List] :=
Module[{indices, indexedRes, sowTag},
SetDelayed ##
Prepend[Thread[Map[Take[#, 1] &, List ## Hold ### Hold[iter]],
Hold], indices];
indexedRes =
If[# === {}, #, First##] &#Last#Reap[
CheckAbort[Do[Sow[{expr, indices}, sowTag], iter], {}], sowTag];
AbortProtect[
Map[First,
SplitBy[indexedRes,
Table[
With[{i = i}, Function[Slot[1][[2, i]]]],
{i, Length[Hold[iter]] - 1}]],
{-3}]]];
It should be able to take the same iterator specification as Table.
How it works
Here is how it works. The first statement (SetDelayed ##...) "parses" the iterators, assuming that they are each of the form {iteratorSymbol_,bounds__}, and assigns the list of iterator variables to the variable indices. The construction with Hold is needed to prevent possible evaluation of iterator variables. There are many ways to do this, I used just one of them. Here is how it works:
In[44]:=
{i, j, k} = {1, 2, 3};
Prepend[Thread[Map[Take[#, 1] &, List ## Hold ###
Hold[{i, 1, 10}, {j, 1, 5}, {k, 1, 3}]], Hold], indices]
Out[45]= Hold[indices, {i, j, k}]
Using SetDelayed ## the-above will then naturally produce the delayed definition of the form indices:={i,j,k}. I assigned the values to indices i,j,k to demonstrate that no unwanted evaluation of them happens when using this construct.
The next statement produces a list of collected results, where each result is grouped in a list with the list of indices used to produce it. Since indices variable is defined by delayed definition, it will evaluate every time afresh, for a new combination of indices. Another crucial feature used here is that the Do loop accepts the same iterator syntax as Table (and also dynamically localizes the iterator variables), while being a sequential (constant memory) construct. To collect the intermediate results, Reap and Sow were used. Since expr can be any piece of code, and can in particular also use Sow, a custom tag with a unique name is needed to only Reap those values that were Sown by our function, but not the code it executes. Since Module naturally produces (temporary) symbols with unique name, I simply used a Module - generated variable without a value, as a tag. This is a generally useful technique.
To be able to collect the results in the case of Abort[] issued by the user interactively or in the code, we wrap the Do loop in CheckAbort. The code that is executed on Abort[] ({} here) is largely arbitrary in this approach, since the collection of results is anyway done by Sow and Reap, although may be useful in a more elaborate version that would save the result into some variable provided by the user and then re-issue the Abort[] (the functionality not currently implemented).
As a result, we get into a variable indexedRes a flat list of the form
{{expr1, {ind11,ind21,...indn1}},...,{exprk, {ind1k,ind2k,...indnk}}
where the results are grouped with the corresponding index combination. We need these index combinations to reconstruct the multi-dimensional resulting list from a flat list. The way to do it is to repeatedly split the list according to the value of i-th index. The function SplitBy has this functionality, but we need to provide a list of functions to be used for splitting steps. Since the index of i-th iterator index in the sublist {expr,{ind1,...,indn}} is 2,i, the function to do the splitting at i-th step is #[[2, i]]&, and we need to construct the list of such functions dynamically to feed it to SplitBy. Here is an example:
In[46]:= Table[With[{i = i}, Function[Slot[1][[2, i]]]], {i, 5}]
Out[46]= {#1[[2, 1]] &, #1[[2, 2]] &, #1[[2, 3]] &, #1[[2, 4]] &, #1[[2, 5]] &}
The With[{i=i},body] construct was used to inject the specific values of i inside pure functions. The alternatives to inject the value of i into Function do exist, such as e.g.:
In[75]:=
Function[Slot[1][[2, i]]] /. Map[List, Thread[HoldPattern[i] -> Range[5]]]
Out[75]= {#1[[2, 1]] &, #1[[2, 2]] &, #1[[2, 3]] &, #1[[2, 4]] &, #1[[2, 5]] &}
or
In[80]:= Block[{Part}, Function /# Thread[Slot[1][[2, Range[5]]]]]
Out[80]= {#1[[2, 1]] &, #1[[2, 2]] &, #1[[2, 3]] &, #1[[2, 4]] &, #1[[ 2, 5]] &}
or
In[86]:= Replace[Table[{2, i}, {i, 5}], {inds__} :> (#[[inds]] &), 1]
Out[86]= {#1[[2, 1]] &, #1[[2, 2]] &, #1[[2, 3]] &, #1[[2, 4]] &, #1[[ 2, 5]] &}
but are probably even more obscure (perhaps except the last one).
The resulting nested list has a proper structure, with sublists {expr,{ind1,...,indn}} being at level -3 (third level from the bottom). By using Map[First,lst,{-3}], we remove the index combinations, since the nested list has been reconstructed already and they are no longer needed. What remains is our result - a nested list of resulting expressions, whose structure corresponds to the structure of a similar nested list produced by Table. The last statement is wrapped in AbortProtect - just in case, to make sure that the result is returned before the possible Abort[] fires.
Example of use
Here is an example where I pressed Alt+. (Abort[]) soon after evaluating the command:
In[133]:= abortableTable[N[(1+1/i)^i],{i,20000}]//Short
Out[133]//Short= {2.,2.25,2.37037,2.44141,<<6496>>,2.71807,2.71807,2.71807}
It is almost as fast as Table:
In[132]:= abortableTable[N[(1+1/i)^i,20],{i,10000}]//Short//Timing
Out[132]= {1.515,{2.0000000000000000000,2.2500000000000000000,<<9997>>,2.7181459268252248640}}
In[131]:= Table[N[(1+1/i)^i,20],{i,10000}]//Short//Timing
Out[131]= {1.5,{2.0000000000000000000,2.2500000000000000000,<<9997>>,2.7181459268252248640}}
But it does not auto-compile while Table does:
In[134]:= Table[N[(1+1/i)^i],{i,10000}]//Short//Timing
Out[134]= {0.,{2.,2.25,2.37037,2.44141,<<9993>>,2.71815,2.71815,2.71815}}
One can code the auto-compilation and add it to the above solution, I just did not do it since it will be a lot of work to do it right.
EDIT
I rewrote the function to make some parts both more concise and easier to understand. Also,
it is about 25 % faster than the first version, on large lists.
ClearAll[abortableTableAlt];
SetAttributes[abortableTableAlt, HoldAll];
abortableTableAlt[expr_, iter : {_Symbol, __} ..] :=
Module[{indices, indexedRes, sowTag, depth = Length[Hold[iter]] - 1},
Hold[iter] /. {sym_Symbol, __} :> sym /. Hold[syms__] :> (indices := {syms});
indexedRes = Replace[#, {x_} :> x] &# Last#Reap[
CheckAbort[Do[Sow[{expr, indices}, sowTag], iter], Null],sowTag];
AbortProtect[
SplitBy[indexedRes, Array[Function[x, #[[2, x]] &], {depth}]][[##,1]] & ##
Table[All, {depth + 1}]
]];
Unfortunately no. If you want to do something like lst=Table[f[i],{i,1,10000}] so that if aborted you still have results, you could do
Clear[lst2];
lst2 = {};
(Do[lst2 = {lst2, f[i]}, {i, 1, 10000}];
lst2=Flatten[lst2];) // Timing
which, for undefined f, takes 0.173066s on my machine, while lst = Table[f[i], {i, 1, 100000}] takes roughly 0.06s (ie, Table it is 3 times faster at the expense of not being interruptible).
Note that the obvious "interruptible" solution, lst = {};
Do[AppendTo[lst, f[i]], {i, 1, 100000}] takes around 40s, so don't do that: use linked lists and flatten at the end, like in my first example (however, that will break if f[i] returns a list, and more care is then needed).
Another solution is to export results of intermediate computations to a running log file as described in this answer by WReach (see the "File-backed In-memory Approach" section). With this you will newer loose results of intermediate computations and will always be able to investigate what is computed so far.
P.S. I think usage of Monitor as suggested in this recent Mathematica tip on twitter is also useful in such cases:
Monitor[Table[Integrate[1/(x^n + 1), x], {n, 20}],
ProgressIndicator[n, {1, 20}]]
Related
I have a list of 200 data points. I want to select one value, and change the data using the manipulate function to create a bad data point, and observe the effects on the graph.
My recent attempts included creating a variable i, and assigning like:
myarray[[80,2]] = i;
and then use manipulate as such:
Manipulate[Curve[myarray], {i, 0, 5}]
This is not giving the desired output, however. It doesn't really make sense to me to put it like that, but I don't see the alternative way. Any help on this particular problem would be greatly appreciated!
Making up some data and a Curve function :-
myarray = Transpose[{Range[10], Range[10]/2}];
Curve[myarray_] := ListLinePlot[myarray]
Manipulate[myarray[[8, 2]] = i; Curve[myarray], {i, 0, 5}]
To complement Chris Degnen's answer, which shows a good approach, here is an explanation for why your original code failed.
Manipulate, like Module, acts as a scoping construct. For this reason the i used by Manipulate (the manipulation variable) is not the same i as set with myarray[[80, 2]] = i; -- it exists in a different Context:
Manipulate[Context[i], {i, 0, 5}]
(* FE` *)
Here is a minimal example of the problem:
ClearAll[x, i]
x = i;
Manipulate[{x, i}, {i, 0, 5}]
(* {i, 2.24} *)
One way around this is to use Block, but you need to use a different name for the manipulate variable:
ClearAll[x, i]
x = {1, 2, i};
Manipulate[Block[{i = ii}, x], {ii, 0, 5}]
(* {1, 2, 1.41} *)
I have a list and I want to apply a logical test to each element, and if any one of them does not satisfy this condition, then return false. I want to write this in Mathematica or find a built-in function, but seems ForAll does not actually do that.
My question is: how to do this most efficiently?
Bonus: how about similarly for Exists function: i.e. if there is any element in the list satisfy the condition, return true.
The answer to the first portion of your question might be something along these lines:
forAll[list_, cond_] := Select[list, ! cond## &, 1] === {};
which is used like this:
forAll[{1, 2, 3, 3.5}, IntegerQ]
The "exists" function is already natively implemented as MemberQ. It could be reimplemented as:
exists[list_,cond_] := Select[list, cond, 1] =!= {};
Use it like
exists[Range#100, (10 == # &)]
which returns true as 10 is an element causing the Select to return {10} which is not equal to {}.
This answer is not intended to show the most efficient method, but rather an alternative method that serves the pedagogical purpose of showing some important core functionality in Mathematica.
nixeagle's answer avoids explicitly testing every element of the list. If the test doesn't lend itself to inclusion in the third argument of Select, then the below might be useful.
To do this, you need to learn about the standard Or and And functions, as well as the Map (/#) and Apply (##) commands which are extremely important for any Mathematica user to learn. (see this tutorial)
Here is a simple example.
In[2]:= data = RandomInteger[{0, 10}, {10}]
Out[2]= {10, 1, 0, 10, 1, 5, 2, 2, 4, 1}
In[4]:= # > 5 & /# data
Out[4]= {True, False, False, True, False, False, False, False, False, \
False}
In[6]:= And ## (# > 5 & /# data)
Out[6]= False
What is going on here is that you are mapping the function ("greater than 5") to each element of the list using Map, to get a list of True/False values. You are then applying the standard logical function And to the whole list to get the single Boolean value.
These are all very much core functionality in Mathematica and I recommend you read the documentation for these functions carefully and practice using them.
This is not the most efficient method, but for small problems you will not notice the difference.
In[11]:= Do[Select[data, ! # > 5 &, 1] === {}, {10000}] // Timing
Out[11]= {0.031, Null}
In[12]:= Do[And ## (# > 5 & /# data);, {10000}] // Timing
Out[12]= {0.11, Null}
For Exists, the alternative to Select would be MatchQ for patterns or MemberQ for explicit values. The documentation has some useful examples.
Not to be taken too seriously, but this
ClearAll[existsC];
existsC[cond_] := With[
{c = cond},
Compile[
{{l, _Integer, 1}},
Module[
{flag = False, len = Length#l},
Do[
If[cond[l[[i]]],
flag = True; Break[];
];,
{i, 1, len}];
flag
],
CompilationTarget -> "C"
]
]
appears to be around 300 times faster than nixeagle's solutions on my machine. What this does is to emit a compiled function which takes a list and compares its elements to the given condition (fixed at compile-time), returning True if any of them matches.
It is used as follows: Compile with the appropriate cond, eg
t = existsC[# == 99999 &];
and then
t[Range#100000] // timeIt
returns 2.33376*10^-6 (a worst-case scenario, as I am just searching linearly and the matching element is at the end) while
exists[Range#100000, (99999 == # &)] // timeIt
returns 0.000237162 (here, timeIt is this).
A pattern based approach:
forAll[list_, test_] := MatchQ[ list, _[__?test] ]
MemberQ already implements exists.
Mathematica 10 has a new function for this: AllTrue. When all elements pass the test my function appears to be a bit faster:
a = Range[2, 1*^7, 2];
AllTrue[a, EvenQ] // Timing // First
forAll[a, EvenQ] // Timing // First
1.014007
0.936006
However with an early exit the benefit of the new function becomes apparent:
a[[123456]] = 1;
AllTrue[a, EvenQ] // Timing // First
forAll[a, EvenQ] // Timing // First
0.031200
0.265202
Even though && and || perform short-circuit evaluation, i.e., don't evaluate their arguments unnecessarily, I suspect that solutions based on Select[] or Map[] won't benefit much from this. That's because they apply the logical test to every element, building a list of Boolean truth-values before performing the conjunction/disjunction among them. If the test you've specified is slow, it can be a real bottleneck.
So here is a variant that does short-circuit evaluation of the condition as well:
allSatisfy[list_, cond_] :=
Catch[Fold[If[cond[#2], True, Throw[False]] &, True, list]]
Testing if any element in the list satisfies the condition is nicely symmetric:
anySatisfy[list_, cond_] :=
Catch[Fold[If[cond[#2], Throw[True], False] &, False, list]]
Of course this could equally have been done (and candidly speaking, more easily) using procedural loops such as While[], but I have a soft spot for functional programming!
nixeagle got the bonus part, but the way I would've done the first part is as follows:
AllSatisfy[expr_, cond_] := Length#Select[expr, cond] == Length#expr
There's a simple solution:
In[1401]:= a = {1, 2, 3}
Out[1401]= {1, 2, 3}
In[1398]:= Boole[Thread[a[[2]] == a]]
Out[1398]= {0, 1, 0}
In[1400]:= Boole[Thread[a[[2]] >= a]]
Out[1400]= {1, 1, 0}
In[1402]:= Boole[Thread[a[[2]] != a]]
Out[1402]= {1, 0, 1}
Success!
I have earlier asked how to make allTrue[{x,list},test] function that protects the placeholder symbol x from evaluation in current context in the same way as Table[expr,{x,...}] protects x
The recipe that I ended up using failed intermittently, and I found the problem down to be caused by automatic conversion of lists to PackedArrays. Here's a failing example
SetAttributes[allTrue, HoldAll];
allTrue[{var_, lis_}, expr_] :=
LengthWhile[lis,
TrueQ[ReleaseHold[Hold[expr] /. HoldPattern[var] -> #]] &] ==
Length[lis];
allTrue[{y, Developer`ToPackedArray[{1, 1, 1}]}, y > 0]
I want allTrue[{x,{1,2,3}},x>0] to return True regardless of whether {1,2,3} gets automatically converted into PackedArray, what is a better way to implement it?
This is a version I've been using for quite a while (wrote it for a second edition of my book originally, but I ended up using it a lot). If arguments represent some unevaluated code, then the test function must have HoldAll or HoldFirst attributes if we want a single piece of code representing one specific clause to be passed to it in its unevaluated form (which may or may not be desirable).
ClearAll[fastOr];
Attributes[fastOr] = {HoldRest};
fastOr[test_, {args___}] := fastOr[test, args];
fastOr[test_, args___] :=
TrueQ[Scan[
Function[arg, If[test[arg], Return[True]], HoldAll],
Hold[args]]];
Edit: I just noticed that the solution by Daniel Reeves at the bottom of the page linked in the question, is very similar to this one. The main difference is that I care about both short-circuiting and keeping arguments unevaluated (see below), while Daniel focuses on the short-circuiting part only.
It does have a short-circuiting behavior. We need HoldRest attribute since we want to preserve the arguments in their unevaluated form. We also need the HoldAll (or HoldFirst) attribute in a pure function to preserve each of the arguments unevaluated until it is passed to test. Whether or not it gets evaluated before it is used in the body of test depends now on the attributes of test. As an example:
Clear[fullSquareQ];
fullSquareQ[x_Integer] := IntegerQ[Sqrt[x]];
In[13]:= Or ## Map[fullSquareQ, Range[50000]] // Timing
Out[13]= {0.594, True}
In[14]:= fastOr[fullSquareQ, Evaluate[Range[10000]]] // Timing
Out[14]= {0., True}
Here is an example where we pass as arguments some pieces of code inducing side effects (printing). The code of the last argument has no chance to execute, since the result has already been determined at the previous clause:
In[15]:= fastOr[# &, Print["*"]; False, Print["**"]; False,
Print["***"]; True, Print["****"]; False]
During evaluation of In[15]:= *
During evaluation of In[15]:= **
During evaluation of In[15]:= ***
Out[15]= True
Note that, since fastOr accepts general pieces of unevaluated code as clauses for Or, you have to wrap your list of values in Evaluate if you don't care that they are going to be evaluated at the start ( as is the case with the Range example above).
Finally, I will illustrate the programmatic construction of held code for fastOr, to show how it can be used (consider it a tiny crash course on working with held expressions if you wish). The following function is very useful when working with held expressions:
joinHeld[a___Hold] := Hold ## Replace[Hold[a], Hold[x___] :> Sequence[x], {1}];
Example:
In[26]:= joinHeld[Hold[Print[1]], Hold[Print[2], Print[3]], Hold[], Hold[Print[4]]]
Out[26]= Hold[Print[1], Print[2], Print[3], Print[4]]
Here is how we use it to construct programmatically the held arguments that were used in the example with Print-s above:
In[27]:=
held = joinHeld ## MapThread[Hold[Print[#]; #2] &,
{NestList[# <> "*" &, "*", 3], {False, False, True, False}}]
Out[27]= Hold[Print["*"]; False, Print["**"]; False, Print["***"]; True, Print["****"]; False]
To pass it to fastOr, we will use another useful idiom: append (or prepend) to Hold[args] until we get all function arguments, and then use Apply (note that, in general, if we don't want the piece we are appending / prepending to evaluate, we must wrap it in Unevaluated, so the general idiom looks like Append[Hold[parts___],Unevaluated[newpart]]):
In[28]:= fastOr ## Prepend[held, # &]
During evaluation of In[28]:= *
During evaluation of In[28]:= **
During evaluation of In[28]:= ***
Out[28]= True
Regarding the original implementation you refer to, you can look at my comment to it I made some while ago. The problem is that TakeWhile and LengthWhile have bugs for packed arrays in v. 8.0.0, they are fixed in the sources of 8.0.1 - so, starting from 8.0.1, you can use either mine or Michael's version.
HTH
Edit:
I just noticed that in the post you referred to, you wanted a different syntax. While it would not be very difficult to adopt the approach taken in fastOr to this case, here is a different implementation, which arguably is in closer correspondence with the existing language constructs for this particular syntax. I suggest to use Table and exceptions, since iterators in Table accept the same syntax as you want. Here it is:
ClearAll[AnyTrue, AllTrue];
SetAttributes[{AnyTrue, AllTrue}, HoldAll];
Module[{exany, exall},
AnyTrue[iter : {var_Symbol, lis_List}, expr_] :=
TrueQ[Catch[Table[If[TrueQ[expr], Throw[True, exany]], iter], exany]];
AllTrue[iter : {var_Symbol, lis_List}, expr_] :=
Catch[Table[If[! TrueQ[expr], Throw[False, exall]], iter], exall] =!= False;
];
A few words of explanation: I use Module on the top level since the custom exception tags we need to define just once, can as well do that at definition-time. The way to break out of Table is through exceptions. Not very elegant and induces a small performance hit, but we buy automatic dynamic localization of your iterator variables done by Table, and simplicity. To do this in a safe way, we must tag an exception with a unique tag, so we don't catch some other exception by mistake. I find using Module for creating persistent exception tags to be a very useful trick in general. Now, some examples:
In[40]:= i = 1
Out[40]= 1
In[41]:= AnyTrue[{i, {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}}, i > 3]
Out[41]= True
In[42]:= AnyTrue[{i, {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}}, i > 6]
Out[42]= False
In[43]:= AllTrue[{i, {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}}, i > 3]
Out[43]= False
In[44]:= AllTrue[{i, {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}}, i < 6]
Out[44]= True
In[45]:= AllTrue[{a, {1, 3, 5}}, AnyTrue[{b, {2, 4, 5}}, EvenQ[a + b]]]
Out[45]= True
In[46]:= AnyTrue[{a, {1, 3, 5}}, AllTrue[{b, {2, 4, 5}}, EvenQ[a + b]]]
Out[46]= False
I started with an assignment to i to show that possible global values of iterator variables don't matter - this is taken care of by Table. Finally, note that (as I commented elsewhere), your original signatures for AllTrue and AnyTrue are a bit too restrictive, in the sense that the following does not work:
In[47]:= lst = Range[5];
AllTrue[{i, lst}, i > 3]
Out[48]= AllTrue[{i, lst}, i > 3]
(since the fact that lst represents a list is not known at the pattern-matching time, due to HoldAll attribute). There is no good reason to keep this behavior, so you can just remove the _List checks: AnyTrue[iter : {var_Symbol, lis_}, expr_] and similarly for AllTrue, and this class of use cases will be covered.
Hi I am using Mathematica 5.2. Suppose I have an array list like
In[2]:=lst=Tuples[{0,1},4]
Out[2]={{0,0,0,0},{0,0,0,1},{0,0,1,0},{0,0,1,1},
{0,1,0,0},{0,1,0,1},{0,1,1,0},{0,1,1,1},
{1,0,0,0},{1,0,0,1},{1,0,1,0},{1,0,1,1},
{1,1,0,0},{1,1,0,1},{1,1,1,0},{1,1,1,1}}
Now I want to get 16 arrays from the above array like st1={0,0,0,0}; st2={0,0,0,1}, st3={0,0,1,0}...
How can I get these array lists using a loop. Because if the no. of elements of the above array named lst become larger then it will not be a wise decision to take each of the element of the array lst separately and give their name separately. I tried this like the following way but it is not working...
Do[st[i]=lst[[i]],{i,1,16}]
Plz some body help me in this problem...
It does work, but what you create are the so-called indexed variables. You should access them also using the index, for example:
In[4]:= {st[1], st[2], st[3]}
Out[4]= {{0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 1}, {0, 1, 0}}
I think what you are trying to do could be done by:
lst = Tuples[{0, 1}, 4];
Table[Evaluate[Symbol["lst" <> ToString[i]]] = lst[[i]], {i, Length#lst}]
So that
lst1 == {0,0,0,0}
But this is not a useful way to manage vars in Mathematica.
Edit
I'll try to show you why having vars lst1,lst2 .. is not useful, and is against the "Mathematica way".
Mathematica works better by applying functions to objects. For example, suppose you want to work with EuclideanDistance. You have a point {1,2,3,4} in R4, and you want to calculate the nearest point from your set to this point.
This is easily done by
eds = EuclideanDistance[{1, 2, 3, 4}, #] & /# Tuples[{0, 1}, 4]
And the nearest point distance is simply:
min = Min[eds]
If you want to know which point/s are the nearest ones, you can do:
Select[lst, EuclideanDistance[{1, 2, 3, 4}, #] == min &]
Now, try to do that same things with your intended lst1,lst2 .. asignments, and you will find it, although not impossible, very,very convoluted.
Edit
BTW, once you have
lst = Tuples[{0, 1}, 4];
You can access each element of the list just by typing
lst[[1]]
etc. In case you need to loop. But again, loops are NOT the Mathematica way. For example, if you want to get another list, with your elements normalized, don't loop and just do:
lstNorm = Norm /# lst
Which is cleaner and quicker than
Do[st[i] = Norm#lst[[i]], {i, 1, 16}]
You will find that defining downvalues (like st[i]) above) is useful when solving equations, but besides that many operations that in other languages are done using arrays, in Mathematica are better carried out by using lists.
Edit
Answering your comment actually I need each element of array lst to find the value of function such as f[x,y,z,k]=x-y+z+k. Such function may be
(#1 - #2 + #3 + #4) & ### lst
or
(#[[1]] - #[[2]] + #[[3]] + #[[4]]) & /# lst
Out:
{0, 1, 1, 2, -1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 0, 1, 1, 2}
HTH!
You can do this:
Table[
Evaluate[
Symbol["st" <> ToString#i]] = lst[[i]],
{i, 1, Length#lst}];
at the end of which try Names["st*"] to see that you now have st1 to st16 defined. You could also do this with MapIndexed, like so:
MapIndexed[(Evaluate#Symbol["sts" <> ToString~Apply~#2] = #1) &, lst]
after which Names["sts*"] shows again that it has worked. Both of these can be done using a loop if this is what you (but I do not see what it buys you).
On the other hand, this way, when you want to access one of them, you need to do something like Symbol["sts" <> ToString[4]]. Using what you have already done or something equivalent, eg,
Table[
Evaluate[stg[i]] = lst[[i]],{i, 1, Length#lst}]
you end up with stg[1], stg[2] etc, and you can access them much more easily by eg Table[stg[i],{i,1,Length#lst}]
You can see what has been defined by ?stg or in more detail by DownValues[stg].
Or is it something else you want?
Leonid linked to a tutorial, which I suggest you read, by the way.
There are N ways of doing this, though like belisarius I have my doubts about your approach. Nonetheless, the easiest way I've found to manage things like this is to use what Mathematica calls "pure functions", like so:
In[1]:= lst = Tuples[{0,1}, 4];
In[2]:= With[{setter = (st[#1] = #2) &},
Do[setter[i, lst[[i]]], {i, Length#lst}]];
Doing it this way, the evaluation rules for special do just what you want. However, I'd approach this without a loop at all, just using a single definition:
In[3]:= ClearAll[st] (* Clearing the existing definitions is important! *)
In[4]:= st[i_Integer] := lst[[i]]
I think if you provide more detail about what you're trying to accomplish, we'll be able to provide more useful advice.
EDIT: Leonid Shifrin comments that if you change the definition of lst after the fact, the change will also affect st. You can avoid this by using With in the way he describes:
With[{rhs = lst},
st[i_Integer] := rhs[[i]]];
I don't know which will be more useful given what you're trying to do, but it's an important point either way.
Maybe something like this?
MapThread[Set, {Array[st, Length#lst], lst}];
For example:
{st[1], st[10], st[16]}
Out[14]= {{0, 0, 0, 0}, {1, 0, 0, 1}, {1, 1, 1, 1}}
Does mathematica have something like "select any" that gets any element of a list that satisfies a criterion?
If you just want to return after the first matching element, use the optional third argument to Select, which is the maximum number of results to return. So you can just do
Any[list_List, crit_, default_:"no match"] :=
With[{maybeMatch = Select[list, crit, 1]},
If[maybeMatch =!= {},
First[maybeMatch],
default]
Mathematica lacks a great way to signal failure to find an answer, since it lacks multiple return values, or the equivalent of Haskell's Maybe type. My solution is to have a user-specifiable default value, so you can make sure you pass in something that's easily distinguishable from a valid answer.
Well, the downside of Eric's answer is that it does execute OddQ on all elements of the list. My call is relatively costly, and it feels wrong to compute it too often. Also, the element of randomness is clearly unneeded, the first one is fine with me.
So, how about
SelectAny[list_List, criterion_] :=
Catch[Scan[ If[criterion[#], Throw[#, "result"]] &, list];
Throw["No such element"], "result"]
And then
SelectAny[{1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, OddQ]
returns 1.
I still wish something were built into Mathematica. Using home-brew functions kind of enlarges your program without bringing much direct benefit.
The Select function provides this built-in, via its third argument which indicates the maximum number of items to select:
In[1]:= Select[{1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, OddQ, 1]
Out[1]= {1}
When none match:
In[2]:= Select[{2, 4}, OddQ, 1]
Out[2]= {}
Edit: Oops, missed that nes1983 already stated this.
You can do it relatively easily with Scan and Return
fstp[p_, l_List] := Scan[ p## && Return## &, l ]
So
In[2]:= OddQ ~fstp~ Range[1,5]
Out[2]= 1
In[3]:= EvenQ ~fstp~ Range[1,5]
Out[3]= 2
I really wish Mathematica could have some options to make expressions evaluated lazily. In a lazy language such as Haskell, you can just define it as normal
fstp p = head . filter p
There's "Select", that gets all the elements that satisfy a condition. So
In[43]:= Select[ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, OddQ ]
Out[43]= {1, 3, 5}
Or do you mean that you want to randomly select a single matching element? I don't know of anything built-in, but you can define it pretty quickly:
Any[lst_, q_] :=
Select[ lst, q] // (Part[#, 1 + Random[Integer, Length[#] - 1]]) &
Which you could use the same way::
In[51]:= Any[ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, OddQ ]
Out[51]= 3