Reputation
521
Top tag
Next privilege 1,000 Rep.
See votes, expandable usercard
Badges
5 12
Newest
 Nice Answer
Impact
~39k people reached

Aug
18
awarded  Nice Answer
Aug
3
comment I keep writing functions like this one: subtract[{a_, b_}] := Subtract[a, b]
I feel dumb about asking such a simple question and getting such an apparently easy answer. Believe it or not, I use Mathematica frequently and effectively, but, as with most computer languages (for me), there are areas where my mind refuses to latch on. For me this happens with the inner parts of lists. Maybe there is a LIS gene which I lack.
Aug
3
comment I keep writing functions like this one: subtract[{a_, b_}] := Subtract[a, b]
Yes, thank you Sir Wizard, Subtract @@@ pairsOfPositions does work. Thank you so much. I will as you suggested look more deeply into Apply.
Aug
3
comment I keep writing functions like this one: subtract[{a_, b_}] := Subtract[a, b]
My question is supposed to be about items embedded in a list. Maybe Apply would help, but I don't yet understand how.
Aug
3
revised I keep writing functions like this one: subtract[{a_, b_}] := Subtract[a, b]
Added example
Aug
3
revised I keep writing functions like this one: subtract[{a_, b_}] := Subtract[a, b]
Added an example
Aug
3
revised I keep writing functions like this one: subtract[{a_, b_}] := Subtract[a, b]
Added an example
Aug
3
asked I keep writing functions like this one: subtract[{a_, b_}] := Subtract[a, b]
Jul
30
awarded  Necromancer
Jul
6
comment Demonstration Confusion
That worked perfectly, so the question is answered. Thank you Michael E2. Now it would be desirable for Wolfram and the user community to spread the word to others who might be perplexed by this. Next up, there are other aspects of demonstrations that ought to be updated to fit with Wolfram's evident and praiseworthy new focus on user friendliness.
Jul
6
awarded  Scholar
Jul
6
accepted Demonstration Confusion
Jul
5
comment Demonstration Confusion
I was hoping to find a simple answer that would enable new users, who naturally lack special knowledge about, for example, the constraints involved in building demonstrations, to make use of such demonstrations in a straightforward way. New users are among those who might particularly benefit from studying well-written demonstration code. I am no longer a new user: I have been using Mathematica for 4 years, including using it essentially full time during the first year. Nevertheless, when I posed my question a few days ago I had not yet figured out how to access demonstration code reliably.
Jul
3
awarded  Curious
Jul
2
comment Demonstration Confusion
Michael E2, your suggestion worked, but only after I selected all the code with the Select All menu command. Could you please create an answer from your comment? Thank you.
Jul
2
comment Demonstration Confusion
Bill, thank you. I found clicking on those little thingies (which have neither general nor specific names) difficult. Also, as far as I can see, it would have to be done for each hidden code block. But I am not aware of a way to know that there is hidden code in every block, and there are a good number of blocks. So, no, that is not yet a useful answer.
Jul
2
asked Demonstration Confusion
Jun
23
comment What are the Wolfram Language's relative strengths for machine learning?
How do you "import a mixed set of columnar data" and get MMA to automatically choose preprocessing etc?
Jun
10
comment Why Mathematica cannot apply The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus automatically?
Bugs are universal. Regressions happen. What bothers me is that Wolfram keeps all this under wraps until someone posts a question here. Then there is an unofficial answer by a company insider. Why does Wolfram not just periodically publish a list of known issues and their status?
May
21
comment What are the most common pitfalls awaiting new users?
I'm sure you are right. My answer is only about understanding what is going on with the language. New users often type in things which don't work, and then get more confused when Mathematica returns answers that they find incomprehensible.