I’d just like to figure out how to have a fixed set of axes, but they keep getting adjusted. Tried all the options I could think of.
Still feel that Mathematica could do a lot better allowing standard matrix and vector notation throughout, not demanding lists in many plotting situations. At least for those interested in the usual linear algebra applications, it’s pretty off-putting.
A3c. Rotating and plotting each side of the unit-square separately.nb (190 KB)
I got the plot to stay still by adding a ParametricPlot of the circle to it. But isn’t there a way to have the coordinate axes stop resizing even if I’m just plotting a moving point?
One more related question: Why can’t I get a line segment to my moving point using ParametricPlot the way I’m doing here?
B1a. Plotting a rotating edge.nb (210 KB)
Is it simply this you want?
Manipulate[
Graphics[{Blue, Line[{{0, 0}, {Cos[\[Theta]], Sin[\[Theta]]}}], Red,
PointSize[Large], Point[{Cos[\[Theta]], Sin[\[Theta]]}]},
Axes -> True, Frame -> True,
PlotRange -> {{-1.1, 1.1}, {-1.1, 1.1}}], {\[Theta], 0, 2 Pi}]
A variation:
Manipulate[
Graphics[{PointSize[Large], Red, Point[AngleVector[\[Theta]]]},
PlotRange -> 1.1, Axes -> True, Frame -> True],
{\[Theta], 0, 2 Pi, Animator}]
Thanks, but in this case I’d prefer not to use Manipulate. I want to have the flexibility to move procedures around and have many separate routines that I try out. Why the heck can’t Mathematica manage to do what the $90 Graphing Calculator program from Pacific Tech does effortlessly?
Thanks. It’s good to know that this will work, but I was hoping that Mathematica would allow me to control global variables via sliders without the need to package my routines in a Manipulate or similar function. It really would make for a lot more flexibility.
…, but I was hoping that Mathematica would allow me to control global variables via sliders without the need to package my routines in a Manipulate …
But Mathematica does allow that:
\[DoubleStruckCapitalR][\[CurlyTheta]_] := ( {{Cos[\[CurlyTheta]], -Sin[\[CurlyTheta]]}, {Sin[\[CurlyTheta]], Cos[\[CurlyTheta]]} } );
p1 = Flatten[\[DoubleStruckCapitalR][Dynamic[\[CurlyTheta]] \[Degree]].( {{1}, {0}} )];
Show[
Graphics[{PointSize[Large], Red, Point[p1]}],
PlotRange -> {{-1, 1}, {-1, 1}},
Axes -> True,
Frame -> True
]
Slider[Dynamic @ \[CurlyTheta], {0, 360, 15}]
Thanks very much, that works. I though I had tried specifying the plot range for both axes that way, but maybe not.
Thanks, that’s definitely a concise way to do this. I just could also use a more flexible set-up that would allow me to have large plots, maybe even spread over multiple files, all controlled by sliders which set global variables. It’s a lot of work to provide a lot of new controls to customize layout options. Hoping that Mathematica will be able to do this. I keep re-reading everything I can find on using Dynamic, and I’ve got to say, a lot of it looks like a quirky and unpredictable add-on, when what was probably needed was a bottom-up rewrite of Mathematica. Not that I don’t love Mathematica! Just wish that the learning curve was less of a cliff!
I am not sure that the following is really what you are looking for. But anyway.
Two notebooks in the same kernel session:
Both plots will respond to slider movement
A
plotLimit = 0.5;
Dynamic@Plot[Sin[x], {x, 0, plotLimit}, PlotRange -> {{0, 2 \[Pi]}, {-1.1, 1.1}}]
Slider[Dynamic[plotLimit], {0.1, 2 \[Pi]}]
B
Dynamic@Plot[Cos[x], {x, 0, plotLimit}, PlotRange -> {{0, 2 \[Pi]}, {-1.1, 1.1}}]
Yes, thanks very much, this is what I want. It’s great when it works out, but as soon as start doing something more complicated, the dynamic operations seem to get much more undpredictable, and also where to put the Dynamic[ ] commands. But this is a big help.