Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

14

This is a bug in version 10.1.0. We decided it was serious enough to warrant a fix via an automatic paclet update. The paclet has been pushed live and Mathematica should install it automatically once it does a periodic check with the paclet server. It should take about a week or so. To install it right away, you can do PacletInstall["StringPatternFix"]. You ...


7

I began this thinking of adding a comment to the answer by bbgodfrey, who points out mathematical fixes to the OP's problem. But each idea led to another test and another idea. Aside from the unceremonious crashing of the kernel, there is more evidence below of a bug or bugs in the parsing of the equations. The fix by bbgodfrey works, it seems, because it ...


6

Workaround for the two-argument Except in string patterns issue until it is fixed: StringCases["104702", DigitCharacter?(! StringMatchQ[#, "0"] &)] Match the second argument directly, then use PatternTest to check that it also doesn't match the first argument.


6

It appears that NDSolveValue is failing, because too few boundary conditions have been specified. For instance, with a boundary condition at x = 1 and a second boundary condition at t = 0 specified as follows, ans = NDSolveValue[ {-Derivative[0, 2][Φ][x, t] + Derivative[2, 0][Φ][x, t] == Sin[Φ[x, t]], Φ[x, 0] == 0, Derivative[0, 1][Φ][x, 0] ...


5

Unfortunately, the Mathematica's Copy As > LaTeX command is not (as you'd expect) a command that copies the selected expressions as LaTeX. Instead, it performs additional reformatting that can only be avoided by changing behavior of the relevant built-in function with: System`FEDump`CopyAsTeXMakeBoxes = #& Details Why copied boxes are reformatted ...


5

This question is being automatically bumped as unanswered. However, we have an authoritative answer in comments: Investigating as a regression. You can put a "bugs" tag on it if you like. --Daniel Lichtblau


4

Here's a workaround. I'm not sure why the variables s1[t], s2[t] are not reset in my first answer (see edit history). We can take care of things manually by making s1 and s2 numerical functions. Block[{ti = Log@100, tf = Log@(10^9), a0 = 3.05917*^7, b0 = 3.05242*^7, s1, s2, s10 = 1, s20 = 1}, s1[t_?NumericQ] := s10; s2[t_?NumericQ] := s20; {{sol}, ...


4

This appears to have been a bug that was present in version 10.0, but has been fixed in version 10.1. I can reproduce the behaviour using Mathematica version 10.0.1, but the leak does not occur in versions 7.0.1, 8.0.1, 9.0.1, or 10.1 (all on Win7 64-bit). I initially set $HistoryLength = 0 to remove saved results from consideration. I speculate that ...


4

This has been fixed in 10.1 (windows) code ClearAll[x] Block[{x}, x::test1 = "message1"]; x::test1 ClearAll[x] Block[{x}, Messages[x] = {HoldPattern[x::test2] :> "message2"}]; x::test2 Block[{x}, x /: x::foo = "bar"; Message[x::foo]]; Messages[x]


4

Fixed in 10.1 (windows) code MatchQ[{1, 2}, {a_, b_}] MatchQ[{1, 2}, {a_, b_: 0}] MatchQ[{1, 2}, {PatternSequence[a_, b_]}] MatchQ[{1, 2}, {PatternSequence[a_, b_: 0]}]


3

fixed in 10.1 (windows): code: StringCases["abcadcacb", "a" ~~ x_ ~~ "c"] StringCases["a" ~~ x_ ~~ "c"]["abcadcacb"]


3

fixed in 10.1 code times = {TimeObject[List[0, 14, 55.99`]], TimeObject[List[0, 14, 57.8`]], TimeObject[List[0, 14, 59.09`]], TimeObject[List[0, 14, 59.11`]], TimeObject[List[0, 14, 59.12`]], TimeObject[List[0, 14, 59.14`]], TimeObject[List[0, 14, 59.4`]], TimeObject[List[0, 14, 59.44`]], TimeObject[List[0, 14, 59.45`]], ...


2

This bug is fixed in Mathematica 10.1.0. (Mac OS X 10.10.3) DSolve[(x^2 + y^2) D[u[x, y], x] + 5 x y D[u[x, y], y] == 0, u[x, y], {x, y}]// AbsoluteTiming Solve::ifun: Inverse functions are being used by Solve, so some solutions may not be found; use Reduce for complete solution information. >> {0.086166,{{u[x, y] -> C[1][Log[-((4 x^2 - ...


2

Fixed in 10.1 (windows) code A = SparseArray[{}, {3, 3}]; A[[1, {1, 2, 3, 1, 1}]] += 1


2

fixed in 10.1 windows code N[Integrate[Sqrt[1 + x^3], {x, -1, 3}]]


2

I believe the main problem with original integration is due to Mathematica try to integrate with a and b being complex numbers. I have some doubts that it's even possible to analytically integrate with complex constants. Integrate[Log[a Cos[x]^2 + b Sin[x]^2], {x, 0, 2 Pi}, Assumptions -> a > 0 && b > 0] (* π (Log[(a b)/16] + 2 Log[(1 + ...


2

fixed in 10.1 (windows): code: Clear[x] Integrate[(1 - x)*(1 + 2*x)^6/Sqrt[1 - x^2], {x, -1, 1}]/Pi


2

To ensure that this does not remain unanswered, this was fixed for 10.1. So, now it returns an FE error, as expected: Fix is confirmed on Mac OS, Windows, and Linux.


2

An alternative workaround is using igraph through my IGraphR package. minimum.size.separators gives all possible smallest vertex cuts. Example: << IGraphR` g = CycleGraph[5, VertexLabels -> "Name", VertexSize -> Large] vcs = IGraph["minimum.size.separators"][g] (* {{2., 5.}, {2., 4.}, {3., 5.}, {1., 3.}, {1., 4.}} *) HighlightGraph[g, #] ...


2

I assume it is a bug based on the following findings: In v9.0.1 it does not happen. Adding Evaluated -> False does not fix it. Strangely Evaluated -> True does fix it. As you mention, other plotting functions, such as ParametricPlot3D, do not have this problem, regardless of the Evaluated setting. This is not an answer, just some arguments on why ...


2

Here's a workaround. Off[Part::partw] GeoListPlot[ ... ] /. Verbatim[Part][___] :> {} On[Part::partw] which strips out the part that is causing the pink boxes. I don't recall what "OriginalInput" is involved in, so strip it out if you absolutely have to.


1

This is not a bug, but an intended design change. The motivation is that TimeSeries is meant for those time-series that support resampling. Zero order interpolation is supported, example: TimeSeries[Range[3], Automatic, ResamplingMethod -> {"Interpolation", InterpolationOrder -> 0}] If your time series is not meant to support resampling then ...


1

data = Transpose@{DateRange[Today, DatePlus[{9, "Week"}], "Week"], RandomReal[{25.5, 50.8}, 10]}; Using ToString avoids the problem: DateListPlot[ Function[{pair}, Tooltip[pair, ToString[NumberForm[pair[[2]], {3, 1}]]]] /@ data, Joined -> False, Filling -> Axis] Or, more compactly: DateListPlot[Tooltip[#, ToString[NumberForm[#[[2]], {3, ...


1

I trust, you have figured out the response to your "why" question by reading the comments. For your convenience here some very common ways for selecting elements from a list. Cases[{1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, x_?(# > 3 &)] Cases[{1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, x_ /; x > 3] Select[{1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, # > 3 &] (*{4,5}*) Welcome to Mathematica !!!


1

Observation in Mathematica 10.1: The problem persists (in a way): That bug persists in 10.1: Just try to evaluate the former "Neat Examples"-snippet (which is no longer in the documentation): DynamicModule[{text = ""}, Column[{InputField[Dynamic[text], String, ContinuousAction -> True, FieldHint -> "Enter a string"], Dynamic[Classify["Language", ...


1

fixed in 10.1 (windows). Now integral remains unevaluated. code: $Assumptions = t \[Element] Reals && t > 0 && t < 1 f[x_] = Abs[Re[Exp[I*x]/(1 - t*Exp[I*x])]] Integrate[f[x], {x, 0, 2 \[Pi]}]


1

Fixed in 10.1 (windows): code dataset = Dataset[{<|"a" -> 1, "b" -> "x", "c" -> {1}|>, <|"a" -> 2, "b" -> "y", "c" -> {2, 3}|>, <|"a" -> 3, "b" -> "z", "c" -> {3}|>, <|"a" -> 4, "b" -> "x", "c" -> {4, 5}|>, <|"a" -> 5, "b" -> "y", "c" -> {5, 6, 7}|>, <|"a" -> 6, "b" ...


1

bug fixed in 10.1 (windows) code ArcLength[Line[{{0, 0}, {1, 0}, {2, 0}}]] ArcLength[Line[{{0}, {1}, {2}}]] ArcLength[Line[{{0, 0}, {1, 0}, {2.0, 0}}]] ArcLength[Line[{{0}, {1}, {2.0}}]]


1

This has been fixed in 10.1 (windows) code Needs["NDSolve`FEM`"] bmesh = ToBoundaryMesh["Coordinates" -> {{0}, {5}, {10}}, "BoundaryElements" -> {PointElement[List /@ #, #] &@Range@3}] bmesh["Wireframe"["MeshElementMarkerStyle" -> Blue]] mesh = ToElementMesh[bmesh, "RegionMarker" -> {{{2.5}, 1, 0.1}, {{7.5}, 2, 0.2}}] ...


1

This has been fixed in 10.1 code Exp[2 I u x] /. Exp[Complex[0, a_] u x] :> a Exp[2 I u Sin[x]] /. Exp[Complex[0, a_] u Sin[x]] :> a foo[2 I u Sin[x]] /. foo[Complex[0, _] u Sin[x]] :> bar foo[2 I u Sin[x]] /. foo[Complex[0, _] (p : u) Sin[x]] :> bar foo[2 I u Sin[x]] /. foo[Complex[0, _] HoldPattern[u] Sin[x]] :> bar



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible