wolfram-mathematica

I've been showing off my fancy new graph formats to colleagues, but we have discovered that graphics based on BarChart have jagged text when exported as EMF, WMF, PDF etc. Line graphs based on ListLinePlot , DateListPlot etc do not have this problem. Short of Rasterize -ing every Export function automatically (it's for an application for end-users so they can't be expected to fiddle with it themselves), is there a workaround? It's a surprise because the documentation says: Since EMF supports vector graphics, fonts are not rasterized when exporting to EMF. EDIT If it's relevant, font used is

It is possible to improve "raw" Fibonacci recursive procedure Fib[n_] := If[n < 2, n, Fib[n - 1] + Fib[n - 2]] with Fib[n_] := Fib[n] = If[n < 2, n, Fib[n - 1] + Fib[n - 2]] in Wolfram Mathematica. First version will suffer from exponential explosion while second one will not since Mathematica will see repeating function calls in expression and memoize (reuse) them. Is it possible to do the same in OCaml? How to improve let rec fib n = if n<2 then n else fib (n-1) + fib (n-2);; in the same manner? You pretty much do what the mathematica version does but manually: let rec fib = let cache =

The question on making a record like in Mathematica has been discussed in few places, such as Struct data type in Mathematica? . The problem with all these methods, is that one loses the ability, it seems, to do the specific extra check on each argument, as in when one does x_?NumericQ . My question is: Is there a way in Mathematica to make a record or a struct, and yet be able to use the checking as above on the individual elements? I am trying to settle down on one method to use as I am tired of having functions called with 10 parameters on them (sometimes one can't avoid this), even when I

How would a function FunctionQ look like, maybe in a way I can even specify the number of arguments allowed? I really feel bad posting after Simon and Daniel, but their codes fail on non-functions which are not symbols. Checking for that and adding a check for builtins via NumericFunction , as suggested by Simon, we arrive at something like FunctionQ[_Function | _InterpolatingFunction | _CompiledFunction] = True; FunctionQ[f_Symbol] := Or[ DownValues[f] =!= {}, MemberQ[ Attributes[f], NumericFunction ]] FunctionQ[_] = False; which should work in some (sigh) real-world cases In[17]:= FunctionQ/

What's the inverse of f[x_]:=Flatten[x] where x is Array with dimensions dims? Michael Pilat There is no built-in function, but it's pretty easy with a combination of Fold and Partition : In[47]:= x1 = RandomReal[{0, 1}, {3, 4, 5}]; In[48]:= dims = Dimensions[x1] Out[48]= {3, 4, 5} In[49]:= x2 = Fold[Partition, Flatten[x1], Most[Reverse[dims]]]; In[50]:= x1 == x2 Out[50]= True High Performance Mark You probably want Partition[] or one of its relatives. 来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3807976/inverse-of-flatten-in-mathematica

Recent versions of Mathematica provide the option of having a unique $Context for each cell group, via: Evaluation > Notebook's Default Context > Unique to Each Cell Group This is an appealing concept, but I find it unusable, as my code spans multiple cell groups. I would like a way to specify a unique context for cell groups of a certain level such as every Section , but not a separate context for every Subsection or Subsubsection . A solution will need to affect new cell groups as they are created. You should be able to do this by modifying your notebook's stylesheet. You can use the option

I need to incorporate a 3D model of the Earth into a satellite orbit intercept simulation I have created in Mathematica (I need it to work with "Graphics3D[]). I have downloaded several different models in formats that Mathematica claims to support and I even created my own in Pro/E. The ones that actually do get imported into the program (using "Import[]") lose their surface image and I am left with a generic sphere. How can I get custom 3D graphics to import correctly into Mathematica? Are certain formats better than others? (I have been using mostly CAD models) And is there place to

Many times I find myself counting occurrences with Tally[ ] and then, once I discarded the original list, having to add (and join) to that counters list the results from another list. This typically happens when I am counting configurations, occurrences, doing some discrete statistics, etc. So I defined a very simple but handy function for Tally aggregation: aggTally[listUnTallied__List:{}, listUnTallied1_List, listTallied_List] := Join[Tally@Join[listUnTallied, listUnTallied1], listTallied] //. {a___, {x_, p_}, b___, {x_, q_}, c___} -> {a, {x, p + q}, b, c}; Such that l = {x, y, z}; lt =