I'm Jin, I work on the designs for the Stack Exchange sites as they graduate from the beta phase. Each site will have its own unique theme that will reflect its topic and culture. However, all sites will share common elements so they feel like they're part of the Stack Exchange family.
I have to...
@MrWizard @Sjoerd @JM It got a bit more urgent to update the FAQ now, especially since we're launching next week. The first FAQ entry can be edited by moderators, I'm told.
When you sign up in a site, with a certain privacy policy, accept their terms, I'm assuming that the acceptance actually means something legally, right?
then the system's stack explodes, as in $RecursionLimit doc says
On most computers, each level of recursion uses a certain amount of stack space. $RecursionLimit allows you to control the amount of stack space that Mathematica can use from within Mathematica. On some computer systems, your whole Mathematica session may crash if you allow it to use more stack space than the computer system allows.
Given a list of word characters, such as this one, I'd like to build a tree, similar to this makeTree function, but with the tree in a different format. So, for an input such as
test = {{"h", "e", "l", "l", "o"}, {"h", "o", "l", "o"}, {"h",
"e", "a"}, {"h", "e", "l", "l", "o", "s"}, {"b", "...
(Going forward an hour), there's also the possibility to make the linked list, instead of 1@2@3@4@End, 1[2][3][4][End]... I wonder the speed and space difference
Start[1][2][3][4][End] vs Start@1@2@3@4@End faceoff
@Rojo yeah. Of course you can be sneaky. You can stuff all bags in pre-wrapped with an inert symbol which you later change to Internal`BagPart, so they unpack themselves.
There are two obvious ways to structure a linked list in Mathematica, "left":
{1, {2, {3, {4, {5, {6, {7, {}}}}}}}}
And "right":
{{{{{{{{}, 7}, 6}, 5}, 4}, 3}, 2}, 1}
These can be made with:
toLeftLL = Fold[{#2, #} &, {}, Reverse@#] & ;
toRightLL = Fold[List, {}, Reverse@#] & ...
@MrWizard yeah, you discovered the Return failure while I was buying bread, I remember reading it when I got back... I meant that think about the stack and recursion, way later
@rcollyer it is harder to Google than I thought. One of those times where you Google it and the only hit that comes up is something you wrote. That happened to me twice today.
As for the other time, I am curious if anyone else did a similar experiment to what I'm doing (with laser plasmas). Apparently not, or if they did, they didn't publish anything yet... only thing I could find was my own conference proceedings paper.
An additional problem is that I'm not really sure what this type of experiment is called...
@rcollyer in the worst case, I have a copy, so I can just upload it somewhere. Will have to wait until I get home though.
@JM ugh, yes, I can imagine. This is essentially what I'm doing. Why publish in such an obscure journal? Why no other publications on this subject? Hard to say...
@JM an interesting approach is to define some common name to mean something else, then pick fights with people about it.
I once had an argument about someone whether something was "superfluid", and in the end it turned out I meant "has long range off-diagonal order" while he meant "has phase stiffness that persists in the presence of disorder"
his definition is closer to being what people think of superfluid (I really meant "condensate"), but it would have saved us some time if we had told each other what we meant by "superfluid"...
@JM ah, maybe you know: is there something wrong with stating that a function $f$ is complex differentiable if $\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} (f(z+\epsilon)-f(z))/\epsilon$ exists for complex epsilon? (ie, doesn't depend on the argument of epsilon)?
so I was wondering because I was just told (well, it was said in my presence anyway) that "The language "the derivative depends on the direction the limit is taken from" is misleading; there is nothing about "direction" involved in what "differentiable" means." and found that curious
@JM yes of course, I appreciate that. I just couldn't understand what "there is nothing about "direction" involved in what "differentiable" means", but I guess I should let it go
@acl Maybe what your guy was trying to say is that it shouldn't matter how you approach the point if indeed your function's differentiable at that point. Which is true.
$\mathrm{abs}(z)$ defined on the set of complex numbers $\mathbb{C}$ is not a holomorphic function because it violates the Cauchy-Riemann conditions, and the derivative is not well defined. $\mathrm{abs}(x)$ defined on the set of real numbers $\mathbb{R}$ is differentiable everywhere except at $x...
It is, of course, one of the first results in basic complex analysis that a holomorphic function satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann equations when considered as a differentiable two-variable real function. I have always seen the converse as: if $f$ is continuously differentiable as a function from $U \...
@Heike The article linked to by the accepted answer in the math.SE question discusses that example. Sadly I can't access the article at the moment to give you a summary.
@Rojo actually my thinking is generally so soft and vague that you can hardly find mistakes in it (just like you can't find framing mistakes in a photo that's completely out of focus)
I get fuzzy often too, every year more and more... But I think I'm still quite good at impainting what I don't know, and at finding inconsistencies and stuff that doesn't fit
@Rojo sure, that's the only thing that prevents me from drowining in a sea of misunderstanding: i try to look at the big picture and see how things fit. unfortunately, I usually miss all the details
@JM sure. I now realise that I started out the opposite way and overcompensated over the last 12 years since I went to university. It's interesting to retroactively introspect, you discover surprising things.
I am about to post a question on the main site, and I have no clue which tag(s) are appropriate. The question is about detecting functionality differences between versions programmatically. Thoughts?
@rcollyer supporting local journals I agree with. Publication threshold not so much. This isn't a bad paper (I read an absolutely horrific one earlier today in APL), and if you have to shop around for journals, I think there's an argument that the work isn't very significant and/or correct in the first place.
@OleksandrR There is also an issue with cost sometimes. Apparently it's normal for some american journals to ask thousands of dollars for publishing a paper.
@rcollyer PRL, yes. One of the Phys. Rev. journals could be a good alternative there. I wouldn't call that shopping around though. Shopping around is when you're a Pakistani group publishing in an obscure Hungarian journal because nobody else will take the crap you scrawled down after an afternoon's work. :)
@jmlopez depending on the need, this may be worth using the curiously recurring template pattern. And, communicationInterface or communicator works for me.
@acl I hadn't thought of this situation. Not been in that position myself so I don't know how it would play out. It doesn't apply to the paper I linked; it came from a combination of reputable groups and is solid (if brief) work.
@Heike some AIP journals do that. I don't like that practice, but unless you have a 20 page paper and want to publish it open access, it's not thousands of dollars either. I was a bit annoyed when AIP offered me a reprint of my paper though... only $275 to you, sir, and we'll even print it in color if you like! Not likely!
@OleksandrR a PhD student I know tried to publish a paper. Initially they wanted something like $3000,- After some negotiation he got it down to about $1000,- but that was as low as they wanted to go. Admittedly it had some pictures in colour in it.
@Heike APS journals charge if you want to print figures in colour (you can have them in colour online without paying, but for printing them in colour, there is a cost)
@rcollyer actually I wonder if anybody pays to publish in colour. Thinking about this, I realise that I have only looked at an actual, physical copy of PRL once!
@rcollyer I suppose we get them too but I've never looked. We certainly had them when I was a PhD student (except that I was in the department of mathematics so I had to take a trip to another library, which I never did).
@acl our dept maintains its own library, so for some journals it works very well. Yet, I would download everything I could as it was just easier even though it was just down the hall, that and I get color that way, too. For journals, though, that weren't in the dept library, I'd have to debate if it was worth it to hike over to the library (not far away) and lug them back to copy.
@jmlopez Here's some good tutorials on the use of auto.
@rcollyer same here. Nice to have a library that has issues of Z. Phys from the 50s even if you don't need them too often. Some things you just can't get online...
OK how do you know `Raster` is involved? I tried `Trace[MatrixPlot[RandomReal[{0, 1}, {5, 5}]], TraceInternal \[Rule] True]` and can't say I understood anything
wow: there is some kind of controversy reported in mainstream greek media regarding the number of vowels in the greek language. it even involves the minister of education
you'd have thought this was a non-controversial issue
@rcollyer I've not been following questions today; which one does it look like a duplicate of? I've yet to have a SO mod "fight" a migration request but I probably won't migrate anyway as that didn't go smoothly last time.
@MrWizard which is the duplicate of what? There's this question that I flagged over on SO to migrate, then someone else pointed out it was an exact (down to wording) dupe of what it was closed against. Then, there's mine which is virtually identical to the one it was closed against, but the answer to mine should be merged over to the other one.
There are two obvious ways to structure a linked list in Mathematica, "left":
{1, {2, {3, {4, {5, {6, {7, {}}}}}}}}
And "right":
{{{{{{{{}, 7}, 6}, 5}, 4}, 3}, 2}, 1}
These can be made with:
toLeftLL = Fold[{#2, #} &, {}, Reverse@#] & ;
toRightLL = Fold[List, {}, Reverse@#] & ...
@MrWizard nothing, venting. I spent some time doing Chop@Trace[hamiltoniancont[s, 10^10., stepsperwell, nwells].#] & /@ rf1 and running out of memory until I realized that Trace isn't Tr
Given a list of word characters, such as this one, I'd like to build a tree, similar to this makeTree function, but with the tree in a different format. So, for an input such as
test = {{"h", "e", "l", "l", "o"}, {"h", "o", "l", "o"}, {"h",
"e", "a"}, {"h", "e", "l", "l", "o", "s"}, {"b", "...
There are two obvious ways to structure a linked list in Mathematica, "left":
{1, {2, {3, {4, {5, {6, {7, {}}}}}}}}
And "right":
{{{{{{{{}, 7}, 6}, 5}, 4}, 3}, 2}, 1}
These can be made with:
toLeftLL = Fold[{#2, #} &, {}, Reverse@#] & ;
toRightLL = Fold[List, {}, Reverse@#] & ...
