126,201 reputation
17228515
bio website
location Oregon, USA
age
visits member for 3 years
seen 8 mins ago

(also known as Spartacus)


See those two pins? Well today I'm going to... stick them in you.


Ok, let me come clean: Mr.Wizard is actually an alias of mine... I'm glad I can finally confess. ― Sjoerd C. de Vries

No, I'm Spatac... I mean, Mr.Wizard! ― R.M

I'm Mr.W, and so's my wife! ― acl


@Spartacus, it was not fixable. ― rcollyer

check again; I just fixed it. :-p ― Spartacus


"This is the internet, where the men are men, the women are men and the children are FBI agents..." ― yoda Dec 18 '11 at 6:06


"My main purpose of being here is in collecting the votes. I'd even go further and say that this is my main purpose in life." ― Leonid Shifrin


"I am making some voodoo dance and invoking the rain God while we talk" ― belisarius


Some people are fortunate. Others get married. ― belisarius


It's not that easy to do the untangling even manually though. – Szabolcs

Maybe you could turn it into a puzzle and let other people do the untangling :-) – Heike

I could make a web based game, and feed all my graphs to the visitors.
SE is a big game, isn't it? :D – Szabolcs


"ListContourPlot crush on simple 5-points data" (Question title)

"Yes, this must be love at first sight."ruebenko


... but I am working with a large body of code written by an incompetent fool (i.e. myself, several years ago...) – Simon Woods


I was tempted to edit your title: "Do rules rule?" But my nose is still bleeding as a result of a limerick. – belisarius


No, but they nowadays let me turn off the lights at night; 24 hours of fluorescence was really starting to make me feral. Brett says I should also mention the tip jar... – Daniel Lichtblau Mar 13 '12 at 20:48


Project Euler


Feb
11
answered How to write series of Do[ ]'s with a single Table[ ]?
Feb
11
comment How to write series of Do[ ]'s with a single Table[ ]?
Okay, so q is the single output you are interested in, correct?
Feb
11
comment How to write series of Do[ ]'s with a single Table[ ]?
Could you give a clean example of the input and output that you want? This will be easier than dissecting your Do loops and Appends etc.
Feb
11
comment How do I prevent exponents from being expanded when displaying text
Somewhat related: (7741), (7799)
Feb
11
revised How do I prevent exponents from being expanded when displaying text
added 18 characters in body
Feb
11
answered How do I prevent exponents from being expanded when displaying text
Feb
11
revised How do I prevent exponents from being expanded when displaying text
edited tags
Feb
10
comment Bare symbol invocation fails but not if used with an argument
@zorank I'm just passing by for a minute. Re: your first question, yes, this@method[args] can almost certainly be handled as you want, but I need to know what it is to be transformed into. Re: the second question, I'm not sure I understand the "substitutions twice" idea. If you update your question with a more complete series of input-ouput mappings I can try to craft a series of rules that do what you wish.
Feb
10
comment Bare symbol invocation fails but not if used with an argument
I updated my answer; please take a look and let me know what may need changing.
Feb
10
revised Bare symbol invocation fails but not if used with an argument
added 716 characters in body
Feb
10
comment Bare symbol invocation fails but not if used with an argument
@zorank For the "the system should complain" input did you mean this = value1 instead of f1 = value1 as that would seem to match the rest of your question better.
Feb
10
comment Bare symbol invocation fails but not if used with an argument
By the way, have you seen this self-Q&A from Leonid Shifrin?: mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/16869/121
Feb
10
comment Bare symbol invocation fails but not if used with an argument
Your update reads: "A mathematica code is being passed to a function which changes it slightly." In what form is this code passed? As an expression in Hold? As a String? Your example looks like a potentially simple application of pattern matching would solve your problem, but first I need to understand the input format.
Feb
10
comment Bare symbol invocation fails but not if used with an argument
@zorank Well now you are beginning to see the problem with working against Mathematica semantics. Frequently there is a way to force what you want but it comes at a cost of fragility, overhead, or makes your code unportable. However, depending on your usage you may find use in UpSet and TagSet; please look at those, and ask for help as needed.
Feb
10
comment Bare symbol invocation fails but not if used with an argument
@zorank Mathematica is quite flexible but it is not amorphous. While they can make for interesting exercises attempting to work against Mathematica's intended behavior is usually not a wise design decision. From your brief description of the problem I can't see a reason for you to need what you illustrate here; I think you could keep the DownValues definitions as a hidden back end to a more directly specifiable frond end construct. You may also wish to consider something like System`Utilities`HashTable (search for examples) or the new Association in version 10, once available.
Feb
10
revised Bare symbol invocation fails but not if used with an argument
edited tags
Feb
10
revised Bare symbol invocation fails but not if used with an argument
added 185 characters in body
Feb
10
comment Bare symbol invocation fails but not if used with an argument
@Rojo Wow, I didn't know that. Still so much to learn. Thanks. :-)
Feb
10
comment Bare symbol invocation fails but not if used with an argument
@Rojo I don't know (or recall) what Fail is used for, so other than the normal recommendation of avoiding user Symbols starting with a capital letter I fear I miss your implication.
Feb
10
answered Bare symbol invocation fails but not if used with an argument