Reputation
57,090
Next tag badge:
139/100 score
18/20 answers
Badges
2 90 227
Newest
 bugs
Impact
~764k people reached

Jun
18
comment Pull out scalars from NonCommutativeMultiply in commutator of SU2 spin algebra
That's true - I haven't had time to look back at this yet, but I think it can be made to work if one makes explicit use of the fact that the couplings are only nearest neighbor, leading to sparse matrices. Of course my goal here was just to illustrate the idea within the parameters of the question.
Jun
18
revised Pauli matrices — simplify expressions without printing out the raw matrix
added 53 characters in body
Jun
18
answered Pauli matrices — simplify expressions without printing out the raw matrix
Jun
18
revised Can I Adjust Thickness of Spheres and Cylinders to Make Objects Printable in 3D?
Removed earlier attempt which is probably not what's needed.
Jun
18
revised How get eigenvectors without phase jump?
MapIndexed wasn't necessary
Jun
18
comment Can I Adjust Thickness of Spheres and Cylinders to Make Objects Printable in 3D?
@YvesKlett And I shouldn't have said Thickness[] is misleading, because there's actually this Q&A where PlotStyle -> Thickness[.1] was used to turn contour surfaces into volumes. In principle, that could also be done here, but my goal was to not abandon Sphere and Cylinder outright.
Jun
18
revised Can I Adjust Thickness of Spheres and Cylinders to Make Objects Printable in 3D?
Added shell
Jun
18
comment Can I Adjust Thickness of Spheres and Cylinders to Make Objects Printable in 3D?
@YvesKlett Oh, I think I understand now. Thickness[] in the question was in fact misleading, but I do need to use RegionDifference to get volumes of the required type. I'll see if I can update the answer...
Jun
18
revised Can I Adjust Thickness of Spheres and Cylinders to Make Objects Printable in 3D?
added reference
Jun
18
comment Can I Adjust Thickness of Spheres and Cylinders to Make Objects Printable in 3D?
@YvesKlett I think you can probably work something out using RegionDifference. But I actually don't know enough about 3D printing to pursue this approach further, until someone explains to me whether this answer is going in the right direction or not... Perhaps I took the reference to Thickness[] in the question too seriously. But according to this question, it does seem to matter.
Jun
18
revised Can I Adjust Thickness of Spheres and Cylinders to Make Objects Printable in 3D?
Added note
Jun
18
answered Can I Adjust Thickness of Spheres and Cylinders to Make Objects Printable in 3D?
Jun
18
comment Can I Adjust Thickness of Spheres and Cylinders to Make Objects Printable in 3D?
For cylinders, I addressed STL export in this answer. In fact, it's many cylinders combined into something like a sphere...
Jun
18
answered How to iterate over the columns of a Dataset?
Jun
17
answered Mathematica vs Python - how does it compare to Python's scientific computing suite?
Jun
17
comment Change Tensor Product symbol for aesthetically pleasing output
You just have to override the attribute HoldAll of Table by wrapping the RuleDelayed in Evaluate. But a cleaner way in this case would be to define the rule as Subscript[a_, i_] /; 1 <= i <=m :> Subscript[(a + 1), i].
Jun
17
answered Change Tensor Product symbol for aesthetically pleasing output
Jun
16
comment Place a small gap between axes and plot?
This takes an unnatural amount of work (which it shouldn't). Maybe these related posts help: FrameTicks in BarChart, Labeling a bar chart, changing how rotated labels are centered.
Jun
16
comment Mathematica vs Python - how does it compare to Python's scientific computing suite?
@N.J.Evans Although printing can be made to work OK, it doesn't really work. E.g., hyperlinks aren't included in the generated PDF. So the question does have a point - however, I think it's too broad for me to be able to formulate a useful answer... by restricting it to other than computer algebra, the possible answers become rather subjective.
Jun
16
comment How do I make a definition/function/method as I would in Java/MATLAB/Python
If you're more worried about false negatives than false positives, then using TrueQ would indeed be better. But my initial worry would be the opposite. If you get a false negative, you can still identify possible assumptions that you could add, and retry. With a false positive, you'll never know that there was a problem, right? Anyway, to get just one result instead of a list, you could simply test if my output above is equal to Range[0, m + 10].