Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

55

In this response, I will focus upon the programming paradigm change when moving from Java to Mathematica. I will emphasize two differences between the languages. The first concerns the "feel" of writing Mathematica code. The second is about how iteration is expressed. The "Feel" of Mathematica Java is a reasonably conventional programming language, ...


32

This is not the full answer but I've solved most of the problems. The hardest one, with sound, remains. Embedded version without music bobthechemist's points Quality is not a problem anymore since here nothing is rasterized. White edges are due to "features" with Texture, I've fixed that using strange VertexTextureCoordinates. I can't handle this ...


31

Update It turns out that the correct way is to use ExtendedDefinition, not ExtendedFullDefinition. Please see the answer by @jkuczm for a detailed explanation. This is a simplification of your solution: Language`ExtendedFullDefinition[new] = Language`ExtendedFullDefinition[old] /. HoldPattern[old] :> new I believe Language`ExtendedFullDefinition ...


23

StringReplace method After reading other answers I was inspired to write a new method. I place it first because it is almost as concise as the method below yet it is more robust (and safe) because it preserves strings as strings. str = "[can {and it(it (mix) up)} look silly]"; StringReplace[str, {"["|"{"|"(" -> -1, "]"|"}"|")" -> 1, " " -> 0}] ...


19

Here is a hybrid recursive/StringReplaceList method. It builds a tree representing all possible splits. Now with a massive speed improvement thanks to Rojo's brilliance. elements = ToLowerCase @ Array[ElementData[#, "Symbol"] &, 112]; altelem = Alternatives @@ elements; f1[""] = Sequence[]; f1[s_String] := Block[{f1}, StringReplaceList[s, ...


19

What is wrong: a) you're using exact arithmetic. b) You keep iterating even if the point seems to be escaping. Try this ClearAll@prodOrb; prodOrb[c_, maxIters_: 100, escapeRadius_: 1] := NestWhileList[#^2 + c &, 0., Abs[#] < escapeRadius &, 1, maxIters ] prodOrb[0. + 10. I] prodOrb[0. + .1 I] (if you don't need the entire list but ...


19

str = "[can {and it(it (mix) up)} look silly]"; i = 10; StringJoin @@ Last[Replace[Characters@str, {"[" | "(" | "{" :> Sow[" ", --i], "]" | ")" | "}" :> Sow["", ++i], c_ :> Sow[c, i]} , 1] ~Reap~ Range@10] (* " mix it up and it can look silly" *) This just scans through the characters one at a time and Sows them with an integer tag. ...


15

I can't find the actual code in your linked data file, but it may be worth posting my own solution for a 2D Poisson problem here. It is copied from my web page. I'm using a maximum of 100000 iterations by default. From your description, it sounds as if you could try to re-write your loops using constructs such as Fold, Nest or - as I do below - FixedPoint. ...


15

Just a bit of fun with @acl's code: ArrayPlot[Table[ NestWhile[#^2 - (0. - 1 I) & , r + i I, Abs[#] < 2.0 &, 1, 10], {r, -2, 2, 0.005}, {i, -2, 2, 0.005}]]


15

This is a straightforward attempt at a recursive descent parser, favoring readability over brevity. First, the tokenizer: tokenize[str_] := DeleteCases[StringCases[str, { "(" -> open[1], "[" -> open[2], "{" -> open[3], ")" -> close[1], "]" -> close[2], "}" -> close[3], x : (Except[Characters["()[]{}"]] ..) ...


15

As no one gave a FixedPoint answer, here is one: preparedStr = StringReplace[ "((your[drink {remember to}]) ovaltine)", { RegularExpression["[{[(]"] -> "{", RegularExpression["[)\]}]"] -> "}" }] "{{your{drink {remember to}}} ovaltine}" lst = {}; ...


14

Here is a fairly simple approach using only higher level functions. First, note that StringCases does almost all the work for you. István mentioned it in passing, but it is more powerful than that. It has an Overlap option that you can set to True to get all possible decompositions in one go: elements = Table[ElementData[i, "Symbol"], {i, 112}]; ...


13

Some really simple partial answers using the string patternmatcher: elements = ToLowerCase /@ Select[Table[ElementData[i, "Symbol"], {i, Length@ElementData[]}], StringLength[#] < 3 &]; StringReplace["archbishop", # -> {#} & /@ elements] /. StringExpression -> Join StringReplace["titanic", # -> {#} & /@ elements] /. ...


13

The following seems a little more elegant. data = Import["http://www.massey.ac.nz/~pscowper/ts/cbe.dat"]; ts = TemporalData[data[[2 ;; -1, 1]], {"1958", Automatic, "Month"}]; DateListPlot[ts["Path"]] TemporalData can also store multiple paths. ts2= TemporalData[Transpose[data[[2 ;; -1]]], {"1958", Automatic, "Month"}]; DateListPlot[ts2["Paths"]]


13

One can also go about this using integer linear programming, with an array of 0-1 variables indexed by vertices and colors. Here is one encoding of that approach. constrainedColorings2[graph[vertices_, nbrhds_], colors_List, start_List, v_] := Module[ {unassigned, nv = Length[vertices], nc = Length[colors], vars, fvars, c1, c2, c3, c4, pos1, pos2, ...


13

Reset the kernel first. str = "[can {and it(it (mix) up)} look silly]" new = StringReplace[ StringReplace[str, {"(" | "[" -> "{", ")" | "]" -> "}"}], {(a : WordCharacter ~~ " " | "" ~~ "{") :> a <> ",{", (a : WordCharacter ~~ " " ~~ b : WordCharacter) :> a <> "," <> b, ("}" ~~ " " | "" ~~ b : ...


13

Well I decided to give it a bit of a go...First import the image and convert to grayscale, then crop to focus on the area of interest. Then I used a LaplacianGaussianFilter, which is often used in blob detection. img = ImageAdjust@ColorConvert[Import["http://i.imgur.com/4lDwE33.jpg"], "Grayscale"]; smallimg = ImageAdjust@ImageTake[img, {200, 500}, {200, ...


12

This appears to be a perfectly legitimate use of DownValues. These are often used by experienced users as a hash table. There are some ways you might improve this. First, you could use the value True directly, and it's arguably better to Scan than to Map, but I've used the latter often enough myself as it rarely matters. Scan[(both[#] = True) &, ...


12

Well, Mike Honeychurch and Leonid Shifrin have pretty much covered the ground, but I have one thing to add, which, while based only on observed behavior, I think helps explain what's going on. Set and SetDelayed both create OwnValues is the form HoldPattern[symbol] :> code. The difference is that code is unevaluated in the case of SetDelayed. ...


12

I remember reading somewhere that everytime I use =, Mathematica copies an expression in the memory (which may be slow and inefficient). This is not quite true, as written here. Mathematica uses a copy-on-write behaviour, i.e. it will only create an actual copy of a datastructure if you modify it. Example: a = {1,2,3}; As this is evaluated, first ...


12

It's hard to know quite where to start with this, but I'd start with the answers to this question for some initial guidance. As a general guide, nested For loops are almost never necessary and using list-based operations is much more efficient, as well as readable and less prone to error. Let's take the inner loop first. For[h = 1, h <= 3, h = h + ...


11

A similar alternative MapThread[Flatten /@ Tuples[{{#1}, #2}] &, {l1, l2}]~Flatten~1 {{a1, a2, 1, 2, 3}, {a1, a2, 4, 5, 6}, {b1, b2, 10, 11, 12}, {b1, b2, 13, 14, 15}, {b1, b2, 16, 17, 18}, {c1, c2, 19, 20, 21}}


11

First, I notice that you are using Real numbers such as 1. and 2. for Part indexes. While this works it would be better to use Integer indexes, 1 and 2. Your use of PregaoMC and then Table, etc., is highly inefficient. Part and Span will be better. Observe: Table[PregaoMC[x], {x, 2, n}] === CompleteMatrix[[2 ;; n, 1]] True n = 359835; ...


11

I worked on Interpreter. As far as the implentation is now, the DelimitedSequence parser does not support quoting, so what you want can't be done. We'll try to add it in a future version.


11

This will give you an idea to start with I think: target = "[racket for {brackets (matching) is a} computers]" Rest@Reap[ Nest[With[{s = StringPosition[#, {"{", "(", "["}][[-1, 1]], e = StringPosition[#, {"}", ")", "]"}][[1, 1]]}, Sow[StringTake[#, {s + 1, e - 1}]]; StringDrop[#, {s, e}]] &, target, Length@StringPosition[target, ...


10

First I want to say, as you mentioned in your comment that your ultimate goal is to to do it for nMax over 100, I suggest you first symbolicly calculate the correlation of the following function, treating $r_n$ ($n=-s,-s+1,\dots,s$, and $s$ is nSteps for short) as variables as $x$: $$\xi(x,r_{-s},r_{-s+1},\dots,r_{s})=\sum _{n=-s}^{s} r_n\, ...


10

You can implement list functionality with string operations, so it's straightforward to make the output of Mr.Wizard's elegant solution more readable while retaining the focus on string operations. Let's begin with a modified version of his solution (altelem is the same as before): f1[""] = ","; f1[s_String] := StringJoin[ StringReplaceList[s, ...


10

I compiled your exact algorithm, and it seems to work OK. I get 15 times speed up when using WVM as target, and 60 times when using C (CompilationTarget->"C"). The output is: {{e, vir, 0}, f} test = Compile[{{nparticle, _Integer, 0}, {rho, _Real, 0}, {rc, _Real, 0}, {r, _Real, 2}, {f, _Real, 2}}, Module[{vir = 0., e = 0., dr = {0., 0., 0.}, ...


10

str = "[to {quite similar(answer (My) is)} Kuba's answer]"; mid = StringReplace[ StringReplace[ "Hold@" <> str, {"[" | "(" -> "{", "]" | ")" -> "}"}] // ToExpression // InputForm // ToString, "*" -> ","] // ToExpression // ReleaseHold {to, {quite, similar, {answer, {My}, is}}, Derivative[1][Kuba], s, answer} ...


10

Adding to Szabolcs's answer, it's better to use ExtendedDefinition instead of ExtendedFullDefinition. In situation in which old symbol (the one that we want to copy), depends on anotherSymbol and anotherSymbol has old symbol somewhere in it's ...Values e.g.: ClearAll[new, old, anotherSymbol] old = anotherSymbol anotherSymbol[] := 2 old Full definition of ...



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