« first day (1858 days earlier)      last day (2632 days later) » 

C. E.
C. E.
3:34 AM
@Alucard I was just fishing for an explanation I might understand. Your test[x_, y_] = x > y is equivalent to test[x_, y_] = False. i.e. you are not passing in the symbols unevaluated. So then the anonymous function associated with this would just be a function that always returns false. You don't need a function for that, there's no point in a function that always returns the same thing. But if you want it you can do f = With[{xx = x, yy = y}, Function[{}, xx > yy]].
So this is how I interpret your question. But you are talking about the opposite thing: passing in symbols unevaluated. If you could clarify it would be great.
 
C. E.
C. E.
4:17 AM
Maybe this is related to what you want, f = Function[{x, y}, HoldForm[x > y], HoldAll]
 
 
3 hours later…
MMM
MMM
6:59 AM
Is it possible to combine Shooting and EquationSimplification methods?
 
yode
yode
7:26 AM
Options[myBen] = {"IncludeFits" -> True, TimeConstraint -> 8};
myBen[x__, opt : OptionsPattern[]] :=
 GeneralUtilities`BenchmarkPlot[x, opt]
Could you teach me why the option don't work?
@halirutan
 
 
11 hours later…
kirma
kirma
6:43 PM
My latest Wolfram product:
 
Alucard
Alucard
i don't want to solve the inequality, it was just a simple code to see how to force the function to work on the variables without using their assigned values. That ">", i understand, was an unfortunate choice . try this piece of code : test[x_, y_] :=
ToString[Unevaluated@x] <> " le'ts make polandball great again " <>
ToString[Unevaluated@y] i learned that it doesn't work if i do not set the attribute HoldAll. what i was curious to know was if there were other methods to achieve the same result
@kirma what is it ?
 
kirma
kirma
@Alucard Cubic cm of Tungsten, also known as Wolfram.
 
Alucard
Alucard
ahhh xD now i understand
 
kirma
kirma
Only non-radioactive elements with higher density are platinum, iridium and osmium, all considerably more expensive. This is just 20 USD or so. :)
 
 
3 hours later…
C. E.
C. E.
9:28 PM
@Alucard ok, now it is clearer. No, there is no other way. You will always have to protect the symbol from evaluation both in the function call and inside the function.
 

« first day (1858 days earlier)      last day (2632 days later) »