agravier

309 reputation

bio	website	linkedin.com/in/agravier
	location	Singapore
	age	28
visits	member for	1 year, 5 months
	seen	Mar 17 at 22:19
stats	profile views	29

I do research in computational neuroscience for my phd. I used to work as software engineer. I also did some research in the supervision of autonomous mobile social robots. I started using Mathematica recently (Jan. 2012), but I can understand faster if you make the parallel with programming in Python, Java, Clojure, Common Lisp, Objective Caml, or C. I tend to be an FOSS advocate, but I appreciate the power of Mathematica.

	309 reputation	bio	website	linkedin.com/in/agravier	visits	member for	1 year, 5 months
27 badges		location	Singapore		seen	Mar 17 at 22:19

summary answers questions tags badges favorites bounties reputation activity

45 Actions

suggestions reviews revisions comments badges posts accepts all

Jan 18	awarded	Yearling
Jun 30	awarded	Taxonomist
May 5	accepted	How to avoid conflicts between local variable names and symbolic arguments in Block constructs?
May 5	revised	How to avoid conflicts between local variable names and symbolic arguments in Block constructs? Fixed misinformation
May 5	comment	How to avoid conflicts between local variable names and symbolic arguments in Block constructs? Thanks, I actually can use Module, I was confused. I will edit my question to clarify that and accept your answer :)
May 5	comment	How to avoid conflicts between local variable names and symbolic arguments in Block constructs? I found why I didn't use `Module`. Not that I encountered any error myself, but I read math.stackexchange.com/a/28904 and half-understood that there is some sort of closure leakage when using Module.
May 4	comment	How to avoid conflicts between local variable names and symbolic arguments in Block constructs? @ruebenko @celtschk @Szabolcs @LeonidShifrin Thank you for your comments; Apart from the `$RecursionLimit` thing, I remember a problem with the scope of the local variables created with Module vs. Block. I can't b more precise because I'm not sufficiently proficient in Mathematica :) I will need to look it up when I can access my Mathematica.
May 4	asked	How to avoid conflicts between local variable names and symbolic arguments in Block constructs?
Feb 3	accepted	Difficulties in creating strict and robust equivalence between two symbols using the Notation package
Feb 3	comment	Difficulties in creating strict and robust equivalence between two symbols using the Notation package Yes, thanks. Anyway, your solution to this question is spot on, I accept it. Thank you.
Feb 3	comment	Difficulties in creating strict and robust equivalence between two symbols using the Notation package In a comment, @Rojo proposed me a neat solution: `MakeBoxes[OverBar[x_], TraditionalForm] := OverscriptBox[#, "_", DiacriticalPositioning -> False] &[ MakeBoxes[x, TraditionalForm]]` ; Now this plus `$PreRead = ReplaceAll[#, "afstarbar" -> OverscriptBox[SuperscriptBox["af", ""], "_"]] &` works great, now my next goal is to let OverscriptBox[SuperscriptBox["af", ""], "_"]] be a symbol to which I can assign values like to `afstarbar`, which I think I just managed to do using Symbolize from the ``Notation``` package: Symbolize[ParsedBoxWrapper["afstarbar"]]. I'm testing it more right now :P
Feb 3	comment	Difficulties in creating strict and robust equivalence between two symbols using the Notation package Some feedback: `$PreRead = ReplaceAll[#, "afstarbar" -> OverBar[SuperStar["af"]]] &` is accepted but then `afstarbar` gives Syntax::sntxi: Incomplete expression; more input is needed ., so I need to use `$PreRead = ReplaceAll[#, "afstarbar" -> OverscriptBox[SuperscriptBox["af", "*"], "_"]] &` where the _ is too low, or the same with [HorizontalLine], that makes a too thick bar.
Feb 2	comment	Difficulties in creating strict and robust equivalence between two symbols using the Notation package Hotness! Thanks, I'll give PreRead a try ASAP.
Feb 1	comment	How to improve the typesetting of mathematical contents @R.M Good idea, I'll do that
Feb 1	comment	How to improve the typesetting of mathematical contents Yes @R.M, this is good for me. It's a thicker bar than the default `OverBar`, but I don't mix the default one with my symbols, so no problem. Thanks, I don't think editing your answer is necessary because this OverBar issue is kind of tangentially off-topic. Your call. And thanks again @Rojo, yours works great for the default OverBar :)
Jan 31	accepted	How to improve the typesetting of mathematical contents
Jan 31	comment	How to improve the typesetting of mathematical contents Thanks @RM. I accept yours because I'm more of a command-line type of guy and I like to understand the internals like $Post
Jan 31	comment	How to improve the typesetting of mathematical contents It is :) -- All these answers are good, my question about the MakeBoxes thing is actually off-topic and I should ask it separately.
Jan 31	comment	How to improve the typesetting of mathematical contents Thanks you @RM :) It seems that you have given the same answer in spirit as Arnoud, at the same time, but your way is more low-level, more Unixy. I am torn. Meta-question: how is one supposed to accept an answer when several good answers are present?
Jan 31	comment	How to improve the typesetting of mathematical contents Great! Thank you TraditionalForm is indeed solving most of my issues. For the first point in my question, the OverBars being too close to the letters, I think it comes from the type of definition I am using: `MakeBoxes[Pmbar, form_] := InterpretationBox[OverscriptBox["Pm", "_"], Pmbar];`... Would you happen to also have a workaround for that :) ?