meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | 28 | |
| visits | member for | 10 months |
| seen | 7 hours ago | |
| stats | profile views | 80 |
As time goes on, I grow more disillusioned with quantum field theory.
|
Jan 14 |
comment |
func::usage needs to be run twice? I'm using Mathematica 8 |
|
Jan 13 |
asked | func::usage needs to be run twice? |
|
Jan 12 |
accepted | How to override `?NumericQ` |
|
Jan 11 |
accepted | How to set a TraditionalForm output for a symbol |
|
Jan 11 |
comment |
How to set a TraditionalForm output for a symbol Yes, you are right; Jens' answer doesn't lead to extraneous parentheses. And, yeah -- I thought your answer was more economical because it took 'fewer lines.' Those are my newbie instincts showing up. |
|
Jan 11 |
comment |
How to set a TraditionalForm output for a symbol Oh, I am just saying that the result of the example in my comment above is: $3\big(B_{0011}(s,m0,m1)\big)$, and the outer parenthesis is extraneous. |
|
Jan 11 |
comment |
How to set a TraditionalForm output for a symbol This answer is very economical, but the problem is that if the pvB function appears in a larger expression, an unneeded pair of parenthesis is added around it. Try TraditionalForm[3 pvB[2,4,x,s,m0,m1]], for example. How should I remove it? |
|
Jan 11 |
asked | How to set a TraditionalForm output for a symbol |
|
Jan 8 |
comment |
How to override `?NumericQ` Very interesting. I've never seen :> before. It looks like RuleDelayed according to the help. I'm not sure why it must be implemented here. |
|
Jan 8 |
comment |
How to override `?NumericQ` If I didn't have ?NumericQ, then the output of my example myFunc[4,s,m,m] would be drastically more complicated. |
|
Jan 8 |
asked | How to override `?NumericQ` |
|
Jan 8 |
comment |
Threading Distribute[] Oh, that's true. On second thought, never mind. |
|
Jan 8 |
comment |
Threading Distribute[] @b.gatessucks This is not good because if there is a function like Log[a+b] inside the expression, the distribute would expand that too, yielding Log[a]+Log[b]. |
|
Jan 8 |
asked | Define an 'inner product' with AngleBracket |
|
Jan 6 |
accepted | Permuting indices to form fully symmetric tensor with repeated indices |
|
Jan 6 |
comment |
Permuting indices to form fully symmetric tensor with repeated indices Wonderful edit with very helpful comments! The reason I localized {i,j,k,r} is because otherwise I couldn't use i,j,... as elements of the input list. It seems to lead to conflicting variables. |
|
Jan 6 |
comment |
Permuting indices to form fully symmetric tensor with repeated indices This is excellent! Thanks! |
|
Jan 6 |
accepted | Defining functions with special cases |
|
Jan 6 |
asked | Permuting indices to form fully symmetric tensor with repeated indices |
|
Jan 3 |
comment |
Defining functions with special cases Your second solution involving Piecewise is particularly useful to me since the problem I have at hand is a function involving 3 argument with lots of different Log's which have many limiting cases. |
