Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2007
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2007

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

Search the Archive

Re: [TS 270]--Re:Re: [TS 48]--Re:why isn't Rational[1,2] (apparently) atomic until it is evaluated?

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg72530] Re: [TS 270]--Re:Re: [TS 48]--Re:why isn't Rational[1,2] (apparently) atomic until it is evaluated?
  • From: "Chris Chiasson" <chris at chiasson.name>
  • Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 01:54:07 -0500 (EST)
  • References: <200701041800.l04I00Qh014339@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 18:00:00 UT, Tom Zeller wrote:
> I suspect for the same reason that other unevaluated expression of the
> same basic form are non-atomic, e.g.
>
> In[2]:= g=Blort[a,b]
>
> Out[2]= Blort[a,b]
>
> This is not an atom ...1
>
> In[3]:= AtomQ[g]
> Out[3]= False
>
> ... because it can be taken apart
>
> In[4]:= g[[1]]
> Out[4]= a
>
> In[5]:= g[[2]]
> Out[5]= b
>
> In[6]:= g[[0]]
> Out[6]= Blort
>
> Tom Zeller
> Wolfram Research Technical Support

Yea, but it just feels weird. Okay, I am out of denial now and am
beginning to cope :-]
Thank you.

-- 
http://chris.chiasson.name/


  • Prev by Date: Re: how to plot a 2-parametric output from Solve with Plot3D
  • Next by Date: Re: please explain why numerical integration is attempted
  • Previous by thread: Re: Orderless attribute for named functions and function arguments
  • Next by thread: A pattern matching problem