So there is a (List)LogLogPlot
I made a few months ago. Now, it turns out the axes I had back then are too small. Now, the creation of these plots costed quite some calculational time. So, instead of doing everything again, I execute
Show[*Paste old graph*,AxesStyle->Large,ImageSize->500]
Which kind of does what I expected it to do. The problem is, due to the increased size of my Tick-numbers, they overlap on the horizontal axis. So I want to reduce these labels from the default
{10,50,100,500,1000,5000,10000}
to
xlist={10,100,1000,10000}.
When I specify Ticks->{{xlist},{ylist}}
All ticks seem to dissapear (actually, one on the y-axis seems to remain, it is hard to read but it looks like it is in the wrong place).
When i specify Ticks->Automatic
, ticks appear at natural numbers with even spacing, as if it were a normal plot instead of a LogLogPlot. The same behaviour when only the y-axis is set to automatic.
MWE: an example of this appears as well when comparing for example
LogLogPlot[10000/T^2, {T, 10, 10000}, PlotStyle -> {Red, Dashed},Ticks->Automatic, AxesStyle -> Large, ImageSize -> 500]
with
Show[LogLogPlot[10000/T^2, {T, 10, 10000}, PlotStyle -> {Red, Dashed}, AxesStyle -> Large, ImageSize -> 500],Ticks->Automatic]
Partial solution: To large extent, the problem can be solved by setting the graphics option
Ticks -> {{{Log[10], 10}, {Log[100], 100}, {Log[1000], 1000}, {Log[10000], 10000}}, Charting`ScaledTicks[{Log, Exp}]}.
The only remaining issue is that this gives only ticks markers at the specified x-values, Whereas the default (Charting`ScaledTicks) draws more unlabeled ticks markers without a label and with varying size. It would be nice to have these too on the x-axis: more ticks-markers with varying size and without label.
It would seem to me this could be obtained by, instead of giving an explicit list in Ticks right away, play with the options of
Charting`ScaledTicks
which seems undocumented.
Options[Charting`ScaledTicks]={Method->Automatic,TicksLength->Automatic,Object->None,Ticks->Automatic}.
Giving Charting
an option like Ticks->{{Log[10],10},{Log[100],100}}
or even TicksLength->Large
doesn't seem to make a difference however.
Information[]
. $\endgroup$InputForm
, instead, it is a bit easier on the eyes. Also, if you are looking for the options being passed toGraphics
useOptions
, which is much easier than trying to read through theInputForm
of the entire thing. $\endgroup$Rule
is it'sFullForm
, i.e.a -> b
is interpreted asRule[a, b]
. It's an important hurdle in understanding how mma processes its input, so keep comparing theFullForm
to theInputForm
it will save you from messes like this one:#[[1]] + 2^#&@#[[2]] &
which got me yesterday.Plus
has a higher precedence thanFunction
, so that this is interpreted as(#[[1]] + 2^#)& @ #[[2]]&
. Definitely not what I wanted. :) $\endgroup$