Re: confusion about Thread[]
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg56068] Re: [mg56007] confusion about Thread[]
- From: yehuda ben-shimol <bsyehuda at gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:56:36 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200504130510.BAA09580@smc.vnet.net>
- Reply-to: yehuda ben-shimol <bsyehuda at gmail.com>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
As I see it, your last expression uses two heads, one for the Or and
one for the And fuctions. Thread is planned to work with a single
head, and this is why it is working with a gereral f[].
yehuda
On 4/13/05, Torsten Coym <torsten.coym at eas.iis.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> Hi group,
>
> given three lists
>
> wLst = {w1, w2, w3}
> zLst = {z1, z2, z3}
> cLst = {c1, c2, c3}
>
> with each element representing a boolean value I want to calculate a
> list of the same function applied to the corresponding elements of wLst,
> zLst, cLst respectively. While the expression
>
> Thread[Thread[wLst && zLst] || Thread[wLst && cLst] ||
> Thread[zLst && cLst]]
>
> {(w1 && z1) || (w1 && c1) || (z1 && c1), (w2 && z2) || (w2 && c2) ||
> (z2 && c2), (w3 && z3) || (w3 && c3) || (z3 && c3)}
>
> does exactly what I want, I wonder why the following approach using a
> pure function with three input arguments and a single call of Thread[]
> does not give the desired result:
>
> Thread[((#1 && #2) || (#1 && #3) || (#2 && #3) & )[wLst, zLst, cLst]]
>
> ({w1, w2, w3} && {z1, z2, z3}) || ({w1, w2, w3} && {c1, c2, c3}) ||
> ({z1, z2, z3} && {c1, c2, c3})
>
> although
>
> ((#1 && #2) || (#1 && #3) || (#2 && #3) & )[w1, z1, c1]
>
> (w1 && z1) || (w1 && c1) || (z1 && c1)
>
> implements the desired logical expression and
>
> Thread[f[wLst, zLst, cLst]]
>
> {f[w1, z1, c1], f[w2, z2, c2], f[w3, z3, c3]}
>
> works the way I expect it.
>
> It seems I am a bit disconnected here ...
>
> Torsten
>
>
- References:
- confusion about Thread[]
- From: Torsten Coym <torsten.coym@eas.iis.fraunhofer.de>
- confusion about Thread[]