« first day (2266 days earlier)      last day (2516 days later) » 

L.K.
L.K.
10:50
Is there a way of making boundaries outside the plot, say Plot[Sin[x], {x, -Pi, Pi}]. Now I would like to have boundaries of size 2Pi X 2. How to go about that?
L.K.
L.K.
11:01
Thanks I sorted it out they are GridLines
 
2 hours later…
Edmund
Edmund
13:01
Is there a built-in symmetric difference function?
kirma
kirma
13:21
@Edmund Do you mean something like RegionSymmetricDifference, or something entirely different?
 
2 hours later…
Edmund
Edmund
15:09
@kirma Like that function but for sets/lists. A built in function that returns the symmetric difference of two (or more) lists passed to it.
kirma
kirma
15:25
@Edmund Hmm...
I guess you mean these lists to be sets, and repeats inside a list to be ignored, but appearance on multiple lists not to be acceptable?
Cases[Tally@Flatten[DeleteDuplicates /@ RandomInteger[{1, 10}, {3, 3}], 1], {x_, 1} :> x] (RandomInteger supplying that data) could maybe be a starting point? I don't think there would be a built-in solution, though...
Edmund
Edmund
@kirma Kind of odd not to have set based symmetric difference built in when where are Union, Intersection, and the like
kirma
kirma
@Edmund Sort of, yes, but what would you do with repeats of an item on a single list (... or a set), for instance? Include all the copies, or not?
Edmund
Edmund
15:40
@kirma For sets there would be no duplicates by definition. For multisets I would refer to set theory behavior of union and complement and have symmetric difference behave as defined by these.
kirma
kirma
15:56
Nag to support and wait half a decade. Or alternatively join a suitable "live CEOing" session on Twitch and push your idea directly to the big honcho!
kirma
kirma
16:31
Getting three responses on three different issues from WR support as a home user over period of less than two hours makes me feel... interesting.
 
1 hour later…
Vitaliy Kaurov
Vitaliy Kaurov
17:44
Making A Word Cloud Dense
http://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/1313605
user image
 
1 hour later…
theorist
theorist
19:10
I have a question about the units syntax that was introduced in v.9 that seems more appropriate for chat. Many have complained it seems unnecessarily cumbersome, and I agree. I hold to the view that syntax should be the minimum necessary to avoid ambiguity and cryptic-ness. I thus don't understand why Wolfram decided it is necessary for the user to write, say `Quantity[10, "Meters"]` instead of, say, `Quantity[10, Meters]` (alternative I) or even just `10 Meters` (alternative II). For instance, with (I), there's no ambiguity that Meters is a unit, since it is included in the second posi…
Jason B.
Jason B.
19:45
@theorist - both of your alternatives involve adding new System` symbols for every unit. I can't say if that had any influence on the Quantity design, but I imagine it would
 
1 hour later…
theorist
theorist
20:53
@JasonB. - I don't understand the underlying details, but in either case (what WR actually did, vs. my alternatives) WR would have needed to get MMA to recognize new syntax. So it sounds like you're saying there's a qualitative difference between the type of code they would have been required to add for MMA to recognize Meters, vs. what they actually added to get MMA to recognize "Meters" (where the former requires adding a new System` symbol).
If so, is it that it's much more work to do the former than the latter, or that the former is more likely to introduce bugs?
Jason B.
Jason B.
21:09
@theorist - I don't think the decision was motivated by which method is easier to implement (and again I have to say that although I work here, I'm just speculating on this). I just think it's preferable not to have all these symbols in the $ContextPath. To me the acceptable alternatives would be to have the units as symbols, but in their own context, or as strings.
I just would rather not have Farads or Coulombs pop up as an autocomplete symbols outside of Quantity
for convenience though, you could define your own symbols, and load them when you load Mathematica - Meters = "Meters"
theorist
theorist
21:37
@JasonB. - Ah, I see. You're saying that having them in the $ContextPath would add clutter. That makes sense. But then what about a third alternative, which requires they be kept in quotes (to identify them as units), but disposes of the need for the cumbersome Quantity construct altogether? I.e., instead of Quantity[10, "Meters"], just 10 "Meters". Why wouldn't that work?
It would certainly be a significant improvement in my UX if I could write just the latter. [Perhaps this is what you meant when you said "have the units as symbols, but in their own context, or as strings."]
Regarding defining my own symbols: Others have tried this, but it doesn't seem to give canonical behavior. All currently working attempts I've seen fail when the quantity magnitude is a variable. E.g., they work when you need to specify 10 meters, but not when you need to specify z meters. I discuss this at length in my answer at the bottom of this thread: mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/15338/…
theorist
theorist
22:07
@JasonB. - Clarification about the last para.: When I wrote "All currently working attempts I've seen fail..." What I meant was that, considering just the attempts that still work in the current version of MMA (some older attempts to define simple units symbols cause MMA 11 to crash), all fail for variable quantities of units. Also, let me add I really appreciate your taking the time to discuss this.

« first day (2266 days earlier)      last day (2516 days later) »