Mathematica Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Mathematica. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Almost as a follow on from this old question, I am having similar problems again, with slight difference, that if the values are small enough, a completely blank plot is produced.

ξ[z_] := ((z - 1) Gamma[z/2 + 1] Zeta[z])/Sqrt[π^z]

ContourPlot[{Im[ξ[σ + b I]], Re[ξ[σ + b I]]}, {σ, -2, 3}, {b, 100, 120},
            PlotPoints -> 500]

enter image description here

Even with PlotPoints->500 there are still breaks in the plot. I know I am dealing with very small numbers here, but is there anything I can do to create a clean plot?

The plot above is not too bad, but I would really like to look at plots for values of {b,7000,7010} - but it just produces a blank plot above 1000. Is there anything I can to to avoid this?


Have tried Exclusions->None but creates a plot that is just wrong!

enter image description here

share|improve this question
try Exclusions->None !Mathematica graphics – Nasser Mar 4 '14 at 10:04
Have tried that - what's with the grid? Is that part of the plot? Also, no luck on the higher values - still blank. – martin Mar 4 '14 at 10:15
up vote 5 down vote accepted

I'm not sure this is on the right track, if so OP just comment and I'll delete. I've found that plotting can get finicky with very large/very small values, and have in the past "helped" by lifting values into a more "reasonable" range. E.G. (I picked a scaling for a "middle" value of the plot range):

ξ[z_] := ((z - 1) Gamma[z/2 + 1] Zeta[z])/Sqrt[π^z]
ContourPlot[{Im[ξ[σ + b I]]*10^2380,  Re[ξ[σ + b I]]*10^2380}, 
             {σ, -2, 3}, {b, 7000, 7010}, PlotPoints -> 100, MaxRecursion -> 2, 
             PerformanceGoal -> "Speed", Contours -> 20, PlotRange -> Automatic]

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
@ rasher, thanks for the advice - a simple solution that at least lets me see what's going on up there! – martin Mar 4 '14 at 12:01
@martin: Glad it seems it is useful, appreciate the accept, but don't hesitate to reverse if a better answer comes along: this is what I've used, since I've not come across a better way (yet). – ciao Mar 4 '14 at 12:05
@rasher we seem to be in-sync tonight...I originally plotted using the scaling...a bit slow (played with log)+1...nice looking plot will delete mine – ubpdqn Mar 4 '14 at 12:30
@ubpdqn: ;-} I hope MMA 10 has improved this (and similar problems with ticks for very wide ranges). – ciao Mar 4 '14 at 21:19

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.