Anyone on right now? I have a very simple question I am virtually positive will be a repeat, so I think it's best I ask here.

Haven't interacted with members of the community for awhile, going on year since I started with MMA, so have been happily lurking. These forums are great.

I'm here but no promises I can help. It depends on the type of problem.

@Liam Okay, one moment. Thanks!

I'm in the process of automating some data analysis and am having trouble combining a few functions to perform the more eloquent version of the following:

all the (painful) way up to 96 (where I did use tables to speed up the manual entry).

That can be done, but you are certain you don't want to use a List/Array?

I have ideas on how to do it but get a few errors.

Sorry, wellData[i] produces the {x, y} series for well (i), and I then use the interpolating function to do analysis (slight peak detection, etc.) with.

I would do the following, but further info might help to why you want individual variables(although it certainly can be done)

  well = Table[Interpolation@wellData[1], {i, 1, 4}];
  well[[1]]

I thought something like Set[Table[ToExpression["well" <> ToString[i]], {i, 1, 96}], Table[Interpolation@ToExpression[wellData[i]], {i, 1, 96}]] would work, as the ToExpression & ToString combo seem to in other areas, but I receive errors when using Set, despite trying to vary the way in which the tables ordered.

Well, I need well1[x] to be operable on as the IntFunc of the well (1) data only, which is why I hoped to do some kind of Table[] / Set (maybe Unique ?) combination, but it is stumping me. I will post the brief version of the error I get.

Oh okay, it looks like maybe what you suggested would let me say well[[1]] and have it mean what I have been referring to as well[1]. Do you think that would let me circumvent this problem?

Yes it would, although there are ways to do what you are trying to do.

Generally speaking though people use Lists like above to do what you are doing.

Excellent, I see what you mean now! That is much more convenient.

Small type above should be

 well = Table[Interpolation@wellData[i], {i, 1, 96}];

Ah okay, I hadn't noticed the discrepancy haha. Figuring in MovingAverage to smooth the data would be trivial with that, too. Thanks, @Liam.

my God the simplification, no more ToExpression["well"<>ToString[d]] in the depths...

Please throw in a few votes for this ad

Collaborative game programming experiment: What's a minimal set of features that need to be added to some code until playing it for say 10 minutes becomes more fun than adding to it? Here are some randomly generated lakes and people. What would you add next?

ArrayPlot@
 Map[If[# < .47, Blue, If[RandomReal[] < .03, Black, Brown]] &,
  GaussianFilter[RandomReal[1, {100, 100}], 5], {2}]

Can we get some kind of verdict on this before the votes age out? Either another close vote (IMO question is too broad/vague) or some no-close votes. mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/42920/…

@Pickett Interesting choice. I'll add something else to it later tonight.

@MichaelHale Looks like it will eventually end here =)

Hehe

@rm-rf Is Alex not a new user? He doesn't have any prior questions as far as I can see...

@rm-rf I don't know. In the Ludum Dare competitions there is no such convergence to voxels, 3D, or sandboxes. Maybe the collaborative design process will mean that if someone adds a scoring system or constraint that someone else will add a deus ex machina mechanism to circumvent that constraint. But it also seems possible that the design will tunnel into some unique specialized corner of the computational universe and the features added will fall within previous perceived constraints.

@Pickett They don't, but there's always more to the story than is available publicly ;)

I'm planning to add random motion to the other people and collision detection to the water next, but I have to do some more spreadsheet analysis stuff first.

Ah, OK. I thought you might be mixing up him with Starlight since her unliked questions are also about the filling of cones :D

@rm-rf At least he hasn't picked up an inviting female as gravatar this time

@Pickett I was indeed referring to her, but didn't confuse the two accounts :)

I see, now it's clearer to me.

Does anyone know what is going here? Odd lines are input, even are output.

 ToString[FullForm@Times[a_, b_]]

  "Times[Pattern[a, Blank[]], Pattern[b, Blank[]]]"

   ToString[FullForm@Times[a___]]

  "Pattern[a, BlankNullSequence[]]"

I would assume the line above should be Times[Pattern[a, BlankNullSequence[]]]

Anyone think of a good fix for the issue? I'm assuming other inbuilt commands might have similar issues.

@LiamWilliam It's because it evaluates, try for example: FullForm@Unevaluated@Times[a___]

I don't know any workaround but there is always something like StrinReplace["Unevaluated["~~x_~~"]"->x] :)

@Pickett Thanks that does work.

ok nice

In case anyone is curious: It seems the above doesn't actually evaluate, but instead I believe internally M auto simplifies statements like Times[a] -> a