https://community.wolfram.com RSS Feed for Wolfram Community showing questions tagged with Mathematica sorted by most viewed. https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/1108742 Consider the following code: f = {1, x, x^2, x^3} Panel[Column[{Row[{CheckboxBar[ Dynamic[list1], # -> f[[#]] & /@ Range[4]], Dynamic[list1]}], Dynamic[Plot[f[[list1]], {x, 0, 1.5}, PlotStyle -> {Red, Blue, Green, Black}, ImageSize -> 500, AxesStyle -> Thick]]}]] I want to get a Dynamic image that show differrent functions according to user selection in Checkbox. However, now I get a fine Dynamic image except that all the curves are in the same color. I wanna know How to set the color of each option? Wu Falchion 2017-05-26T07:13:37Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/181759 I was wondering, it would be interesting to try to use the community as a way to request new functions that could be incorporated into new versions of Wolfram Language, in a colaborative way. Sometimes users simply don't have the whole/deeper system view, to understand that the requested function is or too specific, too broad or already implemented, but I believe that another times we can have a nice insights, that Wolfram Research people haven't yet, or that do not have received much attention  yet.  To the idea is: [b]Post your's requested Function as a answer to this question, and let's upvotes show the more interesting ones![/b] Some rules 1- One Post per function (or class of function), you can have more than one request. 2- Exemplify your function use. Rodrigo Murta 2014-01-08T09:14:19Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/457158 Dear Community, I am just new to Mathematica that came with my Raspberry Pi2. For a while now I have been looking for a program, which is able to minimize a discontinuous and nonlinear problem. Up to now I created the following formulas: f1[x_] := Piecewise[{{0.00000000000252413096488599 x^4 - 0.0000000295981935774312 x^3 + 0.0001268180409138660 x^2 - 0.239339875030011 x + 368.934089585833, x > 0}, {0, x <= 0}}] f2[x_] := Piecewise[{{0.00000000000327848026710691 x^4 - 0.0000000379764365996404 x^3 + 0.0001584280843487410 x^2 - 0.284905693712486 x + 386.639837124850, x > 0}, {0, x <= 0}}] f3[x_] := Piecewise[{{0.00000000000273770414832564 x^4 - 0.0000000245466477791088 x^3 + 0.0000876247218487314 x^2 - 0.151272246878742 x + 298.178569447775, x > 0}, {0, x <= 0}}] f4[x_] := Piecewise[{{0.00000000000151824463118546 x^4 - 0.0000000164748347339070 x^3 + 0.0000716029554621768 x^2 - 0.140270401260495 x + 293.998348739492, x > 0}, {0, x <= 0}}] NMinimize[{f1[w] + f2[x] + f3[y] + f4[z], Plus[w, x, y, z] == 7000}, {w \[Element] Interval[{0, 4000}], x \[Element] Interval[{0, 4000}], y \[Element] Interval[{0, 3000}], z \[Element] Interval[{0, 3000}]}] Unfortunately now I get the following error messages three times before the calculation is aborted: During evaluation of In[8]:= NMinimize::nnum: The function value {812.066} is not a number at {Subscript[w, 1],Subscript[x, 1],Subscript[y, 1],Subscript[z, 1]} = {1052.02,1848.71,2479.67,1619.59}. Is there any quick way of resolving this issue? Did I enter something in a wrong way? At least the sum of the resulting values for w,x,y, and z being 7000 is correct, maybe 812,066 is a local minimum already. But why is there an error message? I also tried to use Minimize and different Methods, but the outcome is the same in all cases. And it is just a LOCAL minimum: As one might be able to see from the equation, fx[0]=0. A minimum value, f.e. for the entered w+x+y+z==7000, should incorporate that some of the functions are set to zero! Is there any way to include this possibility in a fast way? Or do I have to write a minimization for all 16 possibilities and minimize these again? Best regards, Peter Peter Bergmann 2015-03-11T16:05:57Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/403693 Hey there, community! I have recently been working with the new FEM-package included in Mathematica 10. I have a 2D mesh and two interpolating functions (call them uif and vif) obtained by solving a differential equation in the mesh using NDSolve. The mesh is similar to the one shown below, only denser. My problem now is that, given values u0 and v0, I need to find the point where uif[x,y] = u0 and vif[x,y] = v0. ![Example of the mesh][1] Now, since uif and vif are defined on the mesh, I would naturally want to do something like this: NMinimize[{Norm[{u0 - uif[x, y], v0 - vif[x, y]}], {x, y} \[Element] mesh}, {x, y}]]; Here "{x,y} \[Element] mesh" indicates that the point (x,y) lies inside the mesh. Unfortunately, the above code results in the following error: NMinimize::elemc: "Unable to resolve the domain or region membership condition {x,y} \[Element] <<1>>. **So, is there a way to convert the mesh into a region that I can pass on to NMinimize?** Previously I tried defining the region explicitly using unions and differences of disks and rectangles, or implicitly using equations for $x$ and $y$, but due to a number of bugs (or restrictions) with the regions and with the FEM package, this is unfortunately not an option. The mesh is simply-connected and I do have direct access to the boundary mesh if necessary. -Jonatan [1]: /c/portal/getImageAttachment?filename=Samplemesh.jpeg&userId=338953 Jonatan Lehtonen 2014-12-08T16:43:02Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/291612 Since about Version 6 it has taken longer and longer to start up Mathematica. In Version 10 on my HP Pavilion HPE Series it takes a little over a minute. Is this common experience? Is there some way to decrease this time? Does it have any thing to do with virus checking? I guess that one possible solution is to just leave the Mathematica FrontEnd open all the time, say by keeping the Documentation Center open but minimized. David J M Park Jr 2014-07-11T19:45:42Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2118125 Are there any benchmarks yet for Mathematica 12.1 on the new (13") M1 MacBook Air or (13") M1 MacBook Pro? Murray Eisenberg 2020-11-18T20:19:23Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/491285 I want to get the result of a multiplication between a matrix and a vector, basically I want to do a change of reference frame of a vector, so I cannot perform this operation in mathematica. A = {{2, 4}, {2, 1}} // MatrixForm C2 = {{6}, {5}} // MatrixForm A.C2 (*This does not work*) I want to get something like this: {{2, 4}, {2, 1}}.{{6}, {5}} // MatrixForm Actually I have something more complex, but this is enough to show my problem. Do you have any suggestion? Alberto de la Torre 2015-05-04T18:17:40Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/209188 Hello everybody.Can Wolfram Mathematica software show steps and not only solution, for ex of this problem: http://s4.postimg.org/vsp9vu9m5/Untitled.png Greetings from Montenegro :) Lukas 007 2014-02-27T07:29:56Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/404268 To StringSplit a string at word boundaries, I use the code ParseText[ text_] := StringSplit[ToLowerCase[text], RegularExpression["\\W+"]] Applying this function results in a problem result. Thus, sample1 = "These are the times that try men's souls."; ParseText[sample1] returns {"these", "are", "the", "times", "that", "try", "men", "s", "souls"} However, this results in splitting words like "men's", "can't", "don't", etc into two words. What regular expression can I use to keep words like these intact? Lawrence Winkler 2014-12-08T22:42:35Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/288532 I am doing some project planning that could use the CDF Player and CDF technology as a means of distributing a mathematical model to reviewers. However, I've noticed that the documentation for 9 is really for 8. There have been some indications that 10 is coming out with no changes to the documentation since version 8. There is no File | New | CDF (Free or Pro) is 9. The latest CDFs in CDF-Examples are from 2012. This raises a red flag that CDFs are no longer mainstream. Ideally we would like to use a technology that is supported and will stay current with Windows and Apple OS versions. I see that there is a CDF Export and Preview under the File menu. Some of the questions I will be asked by management are: 1. Is CDF considered a legacy technology? If not, will it be available in 10 and future versions - is there a roadmap that can be referenced? 2. If CDF is considered legacy, when do support options expire? 3. Are there any replacements planned from Wolfram that are functionally equivalent to CDFs? If so what are they? 4. What are runtime licensing considerations that should be honored if we use C and C++ as a front-end? CDFs offer an attractive solution - I love what I am seeing in the CDF-Examples - but before committing to CDFs we need to know that this technology is on-going and will stay current with Mathematica and operating systems. Doug Kimzey 2014-07-06T14:44:27Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/774416 I originally posted this on Stack Exchange, where it was suggested it would more appropriately be posted here. The only "real-world" application that meets the specified criteria offered so far (twice) has been Wolfram Alpha (I am not entirely sure that it meets the second criterion - would you choose to develop WA in WL, if you didn't have a bunch of WL experts and a WL development platform at your disposal?). In any event, I am interested in hearing about other real-life applications.... I have a theory, which I am in the process of writing about in a blog post, that other than in applications in mathematics (symbolic logic), Mathematica's primary usefulness is in encouraging a kind of intellectual dilettantism. (Of course, one man's dilettantism is another man's New Kind of Science: i.e. the speculative endeavors of a fertile, creative intellect might readily be mistaken for actual (scientific) achievement by less agile minds.) I don't want this conjecture to be true: I'm as much a buyer of the hype around Mathematica as the next man. But I have noticed that, in practice, Mathematica somehow fails to live up to its apparently unlimited potential for encapsulating creative thought-product across an almost unlimited span of human intellectual endeavor. In my own work in finance, for instance, it has generally proved much less useful than other products such as Matlab. And, in general, when I look at the examples cited by Wolfram in its "customer stories", my reaction to many of them is: "Sure, you can use Mathematica to do that. But why would you, when there are much better alternatives available?". To take one such customer story from the field of 3D CAD, I don't understand why anyone would *prefer* to use Mathematica for such a task, rather than a specialist product like Solidworks. I am aware of applications where the use of Mathematica is fully justified. In my own work, I have used Mathematica to price complex derivatives products, a field in which it excels. Likewise, I am somewhat familiar with Phil Zecker's work at EQA Partners, where he produced an outstanding risk management solution using Mathematica. In both these cases, however, there is no standard, specialized alternative offering in the field of risk management, as there are, for example, in engineering, CAD, app design, or music. In these areas, it seems to me, Mathematica is like a Swiss Army Knife: sure you can use it to dabble in almost anything; but I have screwdrivers, knives and corkscrews that do a better job for their specific purpose. In any event I am looking for counter-examples of real-world applications to refute my hypothesis about Mathematica. By "real-world" I mean specifically applications in which: (i) money changed hands (e.g. a commercial product was sold, or consulting fee earned) ; and (ii) an alternative solution was considered and Mathematica preferred for specific reasons ("it was the only software we could afford or that was available to tackle the job", is not a valid reason to qualify the application as real-world, according to this definition) Jonathan Kinlay 2016-01-17T16:05:55Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/291822 Is Wolfram Workbench going to be updated to work well with Mathematica 10 and the new syntaxes and operators introduced (`<| ... |>`, `@*` and `/*`)? Szabolcs Horvát 2014-07-11T22:29:14Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/164880 What is the difference between 'Clear' and ClearAll'  and between "`*" and "Global`*"  I have used ClearAll["Global`*"]  and values remain attached to variables.   What is the easiest way to clear all values to all variables going forward????? Raymond Low 2013-12-04T08:55:22Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2253852 I realize that I am possibly the only Mathematica user to suffer from existential angst for the product, but still, its worth pausing to ask the question, what is Mathematica for? Meaning, what is its purpose? But for those of you pragmatists tempted to roll your eyes and just get on with using it, let me motivate the question with a chart: ![enter image description here][1] You don't need a model to figure out the long term trend in that time series. And someone, somewhere, in WR needs to be asking the question I am posing in this post, if they are seriously hoping to check that trend and reverse it. Now, let's be fair here. Firstly this is not just a Mathematica issue. For example, here's the comparable chart for Matlab: ![enter image description here][2] So I am not "picking on" Mathematica. Its a general problem for mathematical programming languages. Or perhaps I should say, more accurately, its a challenge for proprietary mathematical programming languages: ![enter image description here][3] Now this "analysis" is of course over-simplistic. It could be, for example, that the downward trend in Mathematica interest is a reflection of a decision by WR to increase prices over time, to maximize profits, i.e. it could conceivably be a *good* thing. But I rather suspect otherwise and instead tend to believe that Mathematica is losing influence and relevance, regardless of whatever I may think of the product. Another response might be: "Of course we are losing market share to license-free, direct competitor products. What's your point?". To which, I suppose, the answer might be: "Are you quite sure that is inevitable? Are there not examples of for-profit products that are so good they are able to maintain market share in the face of cost-free alternatives?". The answer to that question is, of course, yes. But in order to maintain your competitive position you have to be crystal clear in your understanding of what the value proposition is, and why customers will (continue to) pay for your product. Which brings me to the subject of this post: what is Mathematica for? Because unless can answer that question, you can't answer the earlier one. Now I have a theory that the generally held view in WR is that Mathematica is for any kind of programming task you can conceive of. It's a general purpose tool, limited in its capabilities only by your imagination. And at this point we could now queue up a 15 minute informercial featuring examples of applications from Astronomy to Zoology. But just because you *can* do something in Mathematica doesn't mean you should: there are often better alternatives. Mathematica has developed into something like a Swiss Army knife, a general purpose tool you can use for almost any purpose. But, often times what you need is a tool with a specific purpose, like a screwdriver, which will make it much easier to complete the task you have in mind. Let's take a simple example: spreadsheets. I have seen several attempts to get Mathematica to do the kind of thing that Excel can do effortlessly. And the question I always end up asking myself is: "why on God's green earth would anyone in their right mind try to use Mathematica for a task like that?". What is trivial to accomplish in a few seconds or minutes in Excel, typically takes hours of jumping through hoops with Mathematica to achieve a result that is almost always inferior. It's like trying to navigate a freeway in a spaceship, rather than a motor car. Sure, you can do it, buy why?? Another no-no is trying to develop stand-alone software applications in Mathematica. It's extremely hard to do - typically much tougher then using a language designed for that purpose. On the other hand, there are some things that Mathematica excels at, such as: - Mathematics/symbolic logic/symbolic manipulation: superb. Best of breed. - Graphics (including animation) ditto - Documentation. Also superb. Now as good at Matlab, possibly even superior. After that, you could pick a bunch of different application areas in which Mathematica is great. But best of breed? I dont know. Let's take an area I know a little about: time series analysis. prior to 2010, Mathematica was truly awful at handling time series. Basically it didn't. Gradually, over subsequent releases, Mathematica has made enormous strides in this area to the point where it is truly magnificent. For which someone at WL deserves (and I hope has received), several promotions. But despite this, Mathematica is still not best of breed in this area. Why? Because, unaccountably, it is still missing several vital elements of functionality such as Granger causality/ Cointegration and its implementation of important functionality like the Kalman Filter is horribly unintuitive. This shows two things: (i) it is possible for WR to make Mathematica outstanding in almost any area it chooses to. it's just a question of focus. And (ii) to become best of breed, you need to finish the job! By which I mean, provide something close to 99% of the functionality that a professional practitioner in that area would expect to have available. if it chose to, WR could accomplish that in the time series area in a single release, I would guess. The problem, I am suggesting, is that in trying to make Mathematica a product that is "all things to all men", it fails to achieve the status of being indispensable to practitioners in a more limited subset of subject areas. Ok let's go with this conjecture for a moment. Let's wave a magic wand and imagine that we can change Stephen Wolfram's vision about his flagship product, which he has sweated blood over for the last 20-30 years (in other words, this is never going to happen - but its still fun to play the game). What core capabilities would you have WR focus on with the aim of making Mathematica an indispensable product in that area? Here are my choices: (i) Time series & econometrics. Mathematica is so close: just finish the job - it's a no-brainer! (ii) Machine learning. This also means making sure that the GPU capability works as it should, first time and every time. Mathematica still has a way to go here and its a huge area. But I'm sure WR could do it. (iii). Meta-Programming. This one is a BIG stretch. But it just happens that WL may have a huge potential competitive advantage, because the language is itself *computational*. in other words, the building blocks of the language can themselves be manipulated, which is exactly what you need for meta-programming. Try doing that in Python! On this subject I would say that the starting point would be to create WL functionality capable of generating a single line of WL code that is sufficiently complex and interesting to win the Wolfram One-Liner competition. I realize that's a huge challenge and its not just about the difficulty of navigating the terrain of the Wolfram language. It also involves thinking about what "complex" and "interesting" mean, in this context. Think of this as a Turing test, for Metaprogramming capability. Once it's passed, it would open up a floodgate of possibilities, both for WL aficionados but also, critically, for those who don't program in WL, or indeed in any language at all. For reference, check out whats going on in the world of "no -code" application environments. [1]: https://community.wolfram.com//c/portal/getImageAttachment?filename=GoogleTrendsMathematica.png&userId=773999 [2]: https://community.wolfram.com//c/portal/getImageAttachment?filename=GoogleTrendsMatlab.png&userId=773999 [3]: https://community.wolfram.com//c/portal/getImageAttachment?filename=GoogletrendsPython.png&userId=773999 Jonathan Kinlay 2021-04-26T16:09:01Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/127103 For some online courses, programming homework has to be submitted through a Python interface.  I'd like to be able to write the code in Mathematica and call it from Python. Frank Kampas 2013-09-19T22:12:58Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/231697 Is there a way to plot two sets of data on the same x axis if they have different y axis ranges?  The final product would be a single frame with different ticks and lables on the left and right axes.  I have tried Show[] and Inset[] to no avail.  Show[] forces both data sets to be on the y-axis specified by the second data set.  I cannot find a way to make Inset work at all. Thank you very much Wei-Li Diana Ma 2014-04-04T22:36:42Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/142591 Anyone install OS 10.9 and test it with Mathematica yet? I have received numerous warnings from other software providers about the update not being compatible including RStudio, but Wolfram has not issued any updates or statements on the update so I am assuming there have been no reported issues.  Jon Rogers 2013-10-23T04:32:08Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/458769 Hi All Maybe it's a silly question for experienced users, but I'm rather new and I'm having troubles. I need to know if there is a way to force Mathematica to work in the Reals domain. For example, if I do Plot[x^(1/3),{x,-10,10}] I obtain a plot only for positive reals, For negative ones Mathematica branches to a complex root and doesn't plot it. I know that in the past existed a package called RealOnly which did the job, but now it's obsolete. I tried several combinations of Assumptions and so on, but couldn't figure out how to use them. Many thanks Stefano Stefano Bertolucci 2015-03-13T17:01:53Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/1202244 I run Mathematica 11.2 in Windows 10. I have a 4k monitor (resolution 3840x2160) at work and another at home running at recommended 150% scale. The Mathematica interface looks really blurry and it is painful to read (see attached image, the window behind Mathematica is the browser window where this message was being composed. Browser text is very sharp, as is the rest of Windows. Mathematica text is blurry). My laptop (Surface book) runs at a resolution of 3000x2000 and 200% scale and Mathematica there looks even blurrier. High dpi monitors have been out for many years and Mathematica has always been blurry for me on them. Is there a way of making it give good text? Am I missing some non-obvious setting that improves this? Luis. Luis Rademacher 2017-10-13T02:23:21Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/1097940 Since 16 may 2017, why am I not able to get the price history of US stock market tickers? Please see output below! Has anything changed? In[9]:= FinancialData["GE", {{2017, 1, 3}, {2017, 5, 15}}] Out[9]= Missing["NotAvailable"] In[10]:= FinancialData["IBM", {{2017, 1, 3}, {2017, 5, 15}}] Out[10]= Missing["NotAvailable"] sridev ramaswamy 2017-05-18T12:09:48Z