Mathematica 9 is now available
Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2000
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2000

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: odd behaviour in rule delayed

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg21503] Re: [mg21499] odd behaviour in rule delayed
  • From: Andrzej Kozlowski <andrzej at tuins.ac.jp>
  • Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 02:43:24 -0500 (EST)
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

The problem is very simple. The following works fine:

In[9]:=
list = {1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1}; k = 0; newlist = {1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1} /. (1 :> ++k)
Out[9]=
{1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 3}

If you miss out the parentheses Mathematica interprets /.1 as division by
0.1 (at least Mathematica 4.0 does).


Andrzej Kozlowski
Toyama International University
JAPAN
http://sigma.tuins.ac.jp


> From: Francisco Gutierrez <rpena at impsat.net.co>
To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:35:43 -0500 (EST)
> To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
> Subject: [mg21503] [mg21499] odd behaviour in rule delayed
> 
> I have M 4.0, window 95.
> I have a list of 0's and 1's, and I want the one's to perform a consecutive
> numeration. For example, transform {1,0,1,0,0,1} into {1,0,2,0,0,3}.
> 
> The easiest (and most elegant, I think) way to do it is with a counter and
> rule delayed:
> list={1,0,1,0,0,1}
> kk=0; newlist={1,0,1,0,0,1} /.1:>++k
> 
> However, the answer I get from this operation is completely
> odd:{10.,0,10.,0,0,10.}:>++k.  I closed my session and re-started my
> computer, but I keep getting the same stuff.  I don't understand what is
> happening. By the way, this problem didn't appear in M3.0.
> 
> Can somebody help me?
> 
> Francisco Gutierrez
> 
> 



  • Prev by Date: Re: odd behaviour in rule delayed
  • Next by Date: Re: Mathematica on Linux using KDE
  • Previous by thread: Re: odd behaviour in rule delayed
  • Next by thread: Re: odd behaviour in rule delayed