Related
I often have a list of pairs, as
data = {{0,0.0},{1,12.4},{2,14.6},{3,25.1}}
and I want to do something, for instance Rescale, to all of the second elements without touching the first elements. The neatest way I know is:
Transpose[MapAt[Rescale, Transpose[data], 2]]
There must be a way to do this without so much Transposeing. My wish is for something like this to work:
MapAt[Rescale, data, {All, 2}]
But my understanding is that MapAt takes Position-style specifications instead of Part-style specifications. What's the proper solution?
To clarify,
I'm seeking a solution where I don't have to repeat myself, so lacking double Transpose or double [[All,2]], because I consider repetition a signal I'm not doing something the easiest way. However, if eliminating the repetition requires the introduction of intermediate variables or a named function or other additional complexity, maybe the transpose/untranspose solution is already correct.
Use Part:
data = {{0, 0.0}, {1, 12.4}, {2, 14.6}, {3, 25.1}}
data[[All, 2]] = Rescale # data[[All, 2]];
data
Create a copy first if you need to. (data2 = data then data2[[All, 2]] etc.)
Amending my answer to keep up with ruebenko's, this can be made into a function also:
partReplace[dat_, func_, spec__] :=
Module[{a = dat},
a[[spec]] = func # a[[spec]];
a
]
partReplace[data, Rescale, All, 2]
This is quite general is design.
I am coming late to the party, and what I will describe will differ very little with what #Mr. Wizard has, so it is best to consider this answer as a complementary to his solution. My partial excuses are that first, the function below packages things a bit differently and closer to the syntax of MapAt itself, second, it is a bit more general and has an option to use with Listable function, and third, I am reproducing my solution from the past Mathgroup thread for exactly this question, which is more than 2 years old, so I am not plagiarizing :)
So, here is the function:
ClearAll[mapAt,MappedListable];
Protect[MappedListable];
Options[mapAt] = {MappedListable -> False};
mapAt[f_, expr_, {pseq : (All | _Integer) ..}, OptionsPattern[]] :=
Module[{copy = expr},
copy[[pseq]] =
If[TrueQ[OptionValue[MappedListable]] && Head[expr] === List,
f[copy[[pseq]]],
f /# copy[[pseq]]
];
copy];
mapAt[f_, expr_, poslist_List] := MapAt[f, expr, poslist];
This is the same idea as what #Mr. Wizard used, with these differences: 1. In case when the spec is not of the prescribed form, regular MapAt will be used automatically 2. Not all functions are Listable. The solution of #Mr.Wizard assumes that either a function is Listable or we want to apply it to the entire list. In the above code, you can specify this by the MappedListable option.
I will also borrow a few examples from my answer in the above-mentioned thread:
In[18]:= mat=ConstantArray[1,{5,3}];
In[19]:= mapAt[#/10&,mat,{All,3}]
Out[19]= {{1,1,1/10},{1,1,1/10},{1,1,1/10},{1,1,1/10},{1,1,1/10}}
In[20]:= mapAt[#/10&,mat,{3,All}]
Out[20]= {{1,1,1},{1,1,1},{1/10,1/10,1/10},{1,1,1},{1,1,1}}
Testing on large lists shows that using Listability improves the performance, although not so dramatically here:
In[28]:= largemat=ConstantArray[1,{150000,15}];
In[29]:= mapAt[#/10&,largemat,{All,3}];//Timing
Out[29]= {0.203,Null}
In[30]:= mapAt[#/10&,largemat,{All,3},MappedListable->True];//Timing
Out[30]= {0.094,Null}
This is likely because for the above function (#/10&), Map (which is used internally in mapAt for the MappedListable->False (default) setting, was able to auto-compile. In the example below, the difference is more substantial:
ClearAll[f];
f[x_] := 2 x - 1;
In[54]:= mapAt[f,largemat,{All,3}];//Timing
Out[54]= {0.219,Null}
In[55]:= mapAt[f,largemat,{All,3},MappedListable->True];//Timing
Out[55]= {0.031,Null}
The point is that, while f was not declared Listable, we know that its body is built out of Listable functions, and thus it can be applied to the entire list - but OTOH it can not be auto-compiled by Map. Note that adding Listable attribute to f would have been completely wrong here and would destroy the purpose, leading to mapAt being slow in both cases.
How about
Transpose[{#[[All, 1]], Rescale[#[[All, 2]]]} &#data]
which returns what you want (ie, it does not alter data)
If no Transpose is allowed,
Thread[Join[{#[[All, 1]], Rescale[#[[All, 2]]]} &#data]]
works.
EDIT: As "shortest" is now the goal, best from me so far is:
data\[LeftDoubleBracket]All, 2\[RightDoubleBracket] = Rescale[data[[All, 2]]]
at 80 characters, which is identical to Mr.Wizard's... So vote for his answer.
Here is another approach:
op[data_List, fun_] :=
Join[data[[All, {1}]], fun[data[[All, {2}]]], 2]
op[data, Rescale]
Edit 1:
An extension from Mr.Wizard, that does not copy it's data.
SetAttributes[partReplace, HoldFirst]
partReplace[dat_, func_, spec__] := dat[[spec]] = func[dat[[spec]]];
used like this
partReplace[data, Rescale, All, 2]
Edit 2:
Or like this
ReplacePart[data, {All, 2} -> Rescale[data[[All, 2]]]]
This worked for me and a friend
In[128]:= m = {{x, sss, x}, {y, sss, y}}
Out[128]= {{2, sss, 2}, {y, sss, y}}
In[129]:= function[ins1_] := ToUpperCase[ins1];
fatmap[ins2_] := MapAt[function, ins2, 2];
In[131]:= Map[fatmap, m]
Out[131]= {{2, ToUpperCase[sss], 2}, {y, ToUpperCase[sss], y}}
I have a following problem.
f[1]=1;
f[2]=2;
f[_]:=0;
dvs = DownValues[f];
this gives
dvs =
{
HoldPattern[f[1]] :> 1,
HoldPattern[f[2]] :> 2,
HoldPattern[f[_]] :> 0
}
My problem is that I would like to extract only definitions for f[1] and f[2] etc but not the general definition f[_], and I do not know how to do this.
I tried,
Cases[dvs, HoldPattern[ f[_Integer] :> _ ]] (*)
but it gives me nothing, i.e. the empty list.
Interestingly, changing HoldPattern into temporary^footnote
dvs1 = {temporary[1] :> 1, temporary[2] :> 2, temporary[_] :> 0}
and issuing
Cases[dvs1, HoldPattern[temporary[_Integer] :> _]]
gives
{temporary[1] :> 1, temporary[2] :> 2}
and it works. This means that (*) is almost a solution.
I do not not understand why does it work with temporary and not with HoldPattern? How can I make it work directly with HoldPattern?
Of course, the question is what gets evaluated and what not etc. The ethernal problem when coding in Mathematica. Something for real gurus...
With best regards
Zoran
footnote = I typed it by hand as replacement "/. HoldPattern -> temporary" actually executes the f[_]:=0 rule and gives someting strange, this excecution I certainly would like to avoid.
The reason is that you have to escape the HoldPattern, perhaps with Verbatim:
In[11]:= Cases[dvs,
Verbatim[RuleDelayed][
Verbatim[HoldPattern][HoldPattern[f[_Integer]]], _]]
Out[11]= {HoldPattern[f[1]] :> 1, HoldPattern[f[2]] :> 2}
There are just a few heads for which this is necessary, and HoldPattern is one of them, precisely because it is normally "invisible" to the pattern-matcher. For your temporary, or other heads, this wouldn't be necessary. Note by the way that the pattern f[_Integer] is wrapped in HoldPattern - this time HoldPattern is used for its direct purpose - to protect the pattern from evaluation. Note that RuleDelayed is also wrapped in Verbatim - this is in fact another common case for Verbatim - this is needed because Cases has a syntax involving a rule, and we do not want Cases to use this interpretation here. So, this is IMO an overall very good example to illustrate both HoldPattern and Verbatim.
Note also that it is possible to achieve the goal entirely with HoldPattern, like so:
In[14]:= Cases[dvs,HoldPattern[HoldPattern[HoldPattern][f[_Integer]]:>_]]
Out[14]= {HoldPattern[f[1]]:>1,HoldPattern[f[2]]:>2}
However, using HoldPattern for escaping purposes (in place of Verbatim) is IMO conceptually wrong.
EDIT
To calrify a little the situation with Cases, here is a simple example where we use the syntax of Cases involving transformation rules. This extended syntax instructs Cases to not only find and collect matching pieces, but also transform them according to the rules, right after they were found, so the resulting list contains the transformed pieces.
In[29]:= ClearAll[a, b, c, d, e, f];
Cases[{a, b, c, d, e, f}, s_Symbol :> s^2]
Out[30]= {a^2, b^2, c^2, d^2, e^2, f^2}
But what if we need to find elements that are themselves rules? If we just try this:
In[33]:= Cases[{a:>b,c:>d,e:>f},s_Symbol:>_]
Out[33]= {}
It doesn't work since Cases interprets the rule in the second argument as an instruction to use extended syntax, find a symbol and replace it with _. Since it searches on level 1 by default, and symbols are on level 2 here, it finds nothing. Observe:
In[34]:= Cases[{a:>b,c:>d,e:>f},s_Symbol:>_,{2}]
Out[34]= {_,_,_,_,_,_}
In any case, this is not what we wanted. Therefore, we have to force Cases to consider the second argument as a plain pattern (simple, rather than extended, syntax). There are several ways to do that, but all of them "escape" RuleDelayed (or Rule) in some way:
In[37]:= Cases[{a:>b,c:>d,e:>f},(s_Symbol:>_):>s]
Out[37]= {a,c,e}
In[38]:= Cases[{a:>b,c:>d,e:>f},Verbatim[RuleDelayed][s_Symbol,_]:>s]
Out[38]= {a,c,e}
In[39]:= Cases[{a:>b,c:>d,e:>f},(Rule|RuleDelayed)[s_Symbol,_]:>s]
Out[39]= {a,c,e}
In all cases, we either avoid the extended syntax for Cases (last two examples), or manage to use it to our advantage (first case).
Leonid, of course, completely answered the question about why your temporary solution works but HoldPattern does not. However, as an answer to your original problem of extracting the f[1] and f[2] type terms, his code is a bit ugly. To solve just the problem of extracting these terms, I would just concentrate on the structure of the left-hand-side of the definition and use the fact that FreeQ searches at all levels. So, defining
f[1] = 1; f[2] = 2; f[_] := 0;
dvs = DownValues[f];
All of the following
Select[dvs, FreeQ[#, Verbatim[_]] &]
Select[dvs, FreeQ[#, Verbatim[f[_]]] &]
Select[dvs, ! FreeQ[#, HoldPattern[f[_Integer]]] &]
yield the result
{HoldPattern[f[1]] :> 1, HoldPattern[f[2]] :> 2}
Provided there are no f[...] (or, for the first version, Blank[]) terms on the right-hand-side of the downvalues of f, then one of the above will probably be suitable.
Based on Simon's excellent solution here, I suggest:
Cases[DownValues[f], _?(FreeQ[#[[1]], Pattern | Blank] &)]
In Mathematica, I'd like to do something along the lines of:
f[Rational[a_, b_], Rational[c_, d_]] := {a+c, b+d}
But if I evaluate it with expressions of the following form I get the wrong result:
In: f[Rational[50, 100], Rational[4, 10]]
Out: {3, 7}
(* Expected: 54 / 110 -> 27 / 55 *)
Is there any way I can force Mathematica to stop simplifying the expression immediately? I can just do a hold on whatever I pass in, then have the function in question just call ReleaseHold[..] on whatever what was passed in.
This solution is very ugly though, and I don't want to have to do this. I know some functions in Mathematica automatically hold whatever is passed in and delay evaluating it for some reason or another, and I would like to do this here.
In short: How can I force Mathematica to lazily evaluate something being passed into a function without having to manually hold it?
In the standard evaluation procedure, each argument of a function is evaluated in turn. This is prevented by setting the attributes HoldFirst, HoldRest and HoldAll. These attributes make Mathematica "hold" particular arguments in an unevaluated form.
http://reference.wolfram.com/legacy/v5/TheMathematicaBook/PrinciplesOfMathematica/EvaluationOfExpressions/2.6.5.html
e.g.
SetAttributes[yourFunction, HoldFirst]
http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/HoldFirst.html
The docs say any auto-Held arguments are automatically evaluated the first time you use them in the function body. However if for some reason you want to continue working with the argument in the Hold form (e.g. if you'd like to do pattern-matching and rewriting on the unevaluated form of the expression), then perhaps you can re-Hold it.
Using the HoldAll attribute ninjagecko mentioned I was able to craft a solution.
There was actually another issue going on that I wasn't able to see immediately. Specifically, my function wasn't pattern matching as I thought it would be.
I thought my initial issue was simply that Mathematica was automatically simplifying my expressions and I needed to lazily evaluate the parameters being passed in for the correct behavior.
In reality, I forgot that there are multiple ways of representing expressions in Mathematica. As a toy example consider the following function which extracts the numerator and denominator of a fraction:
ExtractNumDem[Fraction[a_, b_]] := {a, b}
(* Already incorrect, ExtractNumDem[4 / 100] gives {1, 25} *)
Just adding the HoldAll (Or HoldFirst even) attribute results in another issue:
SetAttributess[ExtractNumDem, HoldAll];
ExtractNumDem[4 / 100] (* Gives ExtractNumDem[4 / 100] *)
The expression 4 / 100 is actually evaluating to Times[4, Power[100, -1]]. To fix this second issue I had to add a definition for fractions that look like that:
ExtractNumDem[Times[a_, Power[b_, -1]] := {a, b}
ExtractNumDem[4/100] (* Now gives {4, 100} *)
My solution to fixing the issue in my original answer applied the same exact principle. Here's some code to actually see the issue I was running into:
ClearAll[ExtractNumDem]
ExtractNumDem[Rational[a_, b_]] := {a, b}
ExtractNumDem[4 / 100]
SetAttributes[ExtractNumDem, HoldAll];
ExtractNumDem[4 / 100]
ExtractNumDem[Times[a_, Power[b_, -1]]] := {a, b}
ExtractNumDem[4/100]
What is the simplest way to map an arbitrarily funky nested list expr to a function unflatten so that expr==unflatten##Flatten#expr?
Motivation:
Compile can only handle full arrays (something I just learned -- but not from the error message), so the idea is to use unflatten together with a compiled version of the flattened expression:
fPrivate=Compile[{x,y},Evaluate#Flatten#expr];
f[x_?NumericQ,y_?NumericQ]:=unflatten##fPrivate[x,y]
Example of a solution to a less general problem:
What I actually need to do is to calculate all the derivatives for a given multivariate function up to some order. For this case, I hack my way along like so:
expr=Table[D[x^2 y+y^3,{{x,y},k}],{k,0,2}];
unflatten=Module[{f,x,y,a,b,sslot,tt},
tt=Table[D[f[x,y],{{x,y},k}],{k,0,2}] /.
{Derivative[a_,b_][_][__]-> x[a,b], f[__]-> x[0,0]};
(Evaluate[tt/.MapIndexed[#1->sslot[#2[[1]]]&,
Flatten[tt]]/. sslot-> Slot]&) ]
Out[1]= {x^2 y + y^3, {2 x y, x^2 + 3 y^2}, {{2 y, 2 x}, {2 x, 6 y}}}
Out[2]= {#1, {#2, #3}, {{#4, #5}, {#5, #7}}} &
This works, but it is neither elegant nor general.
Edit: Here is the "job security" version of the solution provided by aaz:
makeUnflatten[expr_List]:=Module[{i=1},
Function#Evaluate#ReplaceAll[
If[ListQ[#1],Map[#0,#1],i++]&#expr,
i_Integer-> Slot[i]]]
It works a charm:
In[2]= makeUnflatten[expr]
Out[2]= {#1,{#2,#3},{{#4,#5},{#6,#7}}}&
You obviously need to save some information about list structure, because Flatten[{a,{b,c}}]==Flatten[{{a,b},c}].
If ArrayQ[expr], then the list structure is given by Dimensions[expr] and you can reconstruct it with Partition. E.g.
expr = {{a, b, c}, {d, e, f}};
dimensions = Dimensions[expr]
{2,3}
unflatten = Fold[Partition, #1, Reverse[Drop[dimensions, 1]]]&;
expr == unflatten # Flatten[expr]
(The Partition man page actually has a similar example called unflatten.)
If expr is not an array, you can try this:
expr = {a, {b, c}};
indexes = Module[{i=0}, If[ListQ[#1], Map[#0, #1], ++i]& #expr]
{1, {2, 3}}
slots = indexes /. {i_Integer -> Slot[i]}
{#1, {#2, #3}}
unflatten = Function[Release[slots]]
{#1, {#2, #3}} &
expr == unflatten ## Flatten[expr]
I am not sure what you are trying to do with Compile. It is used when you want to evaluate procedural or functional expressions very quickly on numerical values, so I don't think it is going to help here. If repeated calculations of D[f,...] are impeding your performance, you can precompute and store them with something like
Table[d[k]=D[f,{{x,y},k}],{k,0,kk}];
Then just call d[k] to get the kth derivative.
I just wanted to update the excellent solutions by aaz and Janus. It seems that, at least in Mathematica 9.0.1.0 on Mac OSX, the assignment (see aaz's solution)
{i_Integer -> Slot[i]}
fails. If, however, we use
{i_Integer :> Slot[i]}
instead, we succeed. The same holds, of course, for the ReplaceAll call in Janus's "job security" version.
For good measure, I include my own function.
unflatten[ex_List, exOriginal_List] :=
Module[
{indexes, slots, unflat},
indexes =
Module[
{i = 0},
If[ListQ[#1], Map[#0, #1], ++i] &#exOriginal
];
slots = indexes /. {i_Integer :> Slot[i]};
unflat = Function[Release[slots]];
unflat ## ex
];
(* example *)
expr = {a, {b, c}};
expr // Flatten // unflatten[#, expr] &
It might seem a little like a cheat to use the original expression in the function, but as aaz points out, we need some information from the original expression. While you don't need it all, in order to have a single function that can unflatten, all is necessary.
My application is similar to Janus's: I am parallelizing calls to Simplify for a tensor. Using ParallelTable I can significantly improve performance, but I wreck the tensor structure in the process. This gives me a quick way to reconstruct my original tensor, simplified.
I'm just getting started with Mathematica, and I've got what must be a pretty basic question about making substitutions but I can't get it to work.
I'd like to find the Euler-Lagrange equations for a functional of the function phi[x,y] and then make a substitution for the function phi[x,y]
If I enter the following:
VariationalD[tau*phi[x, y]^2 - 2*phi[x, y]^4 + phi[x, y]^6 + Dot[D[phi[x, y], {{x, y}}], D[phi[x, y, {{x, y}}]]], phi[x, y], {x, y}]
I get
Plus[Times[2,tau,phi[x,y]],Times[-8,Power[phi[x,y],3]],Times[6,Power[phi[x,y],5]],Times[-2,Plus[Derivative[0,2][phi][x,y],Derivative[2,0][phi][x,y]]]]
Now if I try % /. phi[x,y] -> phi0[x,y] + psi[x,y] it makes the substitution for all the polynomial terms, but not for the Derivative terms.
How do I force the substitution into those functions?
I agree with all of what rcollyer says, but I think his final solution might be a little opaque.
The simplest rule that I could come up with (which is the basically the same as rcollyer's) is
{phi[x__] :> phi0[x] + psi[x], f_[phi][x__] :> f[phi0][x] + f[psi][x]}
or something with less possible side effects is
{phi[x__] :> phi0[x] + psi[x], Derivative[n__][phi][x__] :> Derivative[n][phi0][x] + Derivative[n][psi][x]}
It would be a lot easier if Derivative had a Default property (compare Default[Times] with Default[Derivative]). It should be something like Default[Derivative] := Sequence[] but unfortunately that doesn't play nice with the pattern matching.
Getting back to your question, you probably want to define something like
VariationalD[expr_, sym_, var_] := Module[{
vRule = {sym[x__] :> sym[x] + var[x],
Derivative[n__][sym][x__] :> Derivative[n][sym][x] + Derivative[n][var][x]}},
(expr /. vRule) - expr]
Where the variation var of the symbol sym is assumed to be small. Of course what you then need to do is series expand around var=0 and only keep the linear part. Then use integration by parts on any term which has derivatives of var. All of which should be included in the above module.
First, you misplaced a ] in your second derivative term, it should read D[phi[x, y], {{x, y}}]] not D[phi[x, y, {{x, y}}]]].
That said, replacement in Mathematica can be tricky, as has been pointed out in other questions. That isn't to say it is impossible, just requires some work. In this case, the problem comes in in that phi[x,y] is different from Derivative[2, 0][phi][x, y]. So, your pattern won't match the derivative term. The simplest thing to do is to add the rule
Derivative[a__][phi][x__]:> Derivative[a][phi0][x] + Derivative[a][psi][x]
to your list of replacement rules. Three things to note: 1) I use ReplaceDelayed so that both types of derivatives will match without writing multiple rules, 2) since I can use patterns, I named them so that I can refer to them on the RHS of the rule, and 3) I used a double underscore when defining a and x which will match one or more items in a sequence.
Of course, that isn't the most satisfying way to approach the problem, as it will require you to write two rules every time you wish to this sort of replacement. It turns out a more general approach is surprisingly difficult to accomplish, and I'll have to get back to you on it.
Edit: This requires a double replacement, as follows
<result> /. phi -> phi0 + psi /. a_[b__][c__] :> Through[Distribute[a[b]][c]]
Distribute ensures that the derivative works correctly with Plus, and Through does the same with the function args c. The key is that the Head of Derivative[2, 0][phi][x, y] is Derivative[2, 0][phi], hence the several levels of square brackets in the rule.