Mathematica 6.0 easier for me ... (small review)

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg76457] Mathematica 6.0 easier for me ... (small review)
• From: Paul at desinc.com
• Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 04:59:18 -0400 (EDT)

```This is far from an in depth review.  I have been working on a fun
problem and have had difficulty making progress with 5.2.  Something
about 6.0 made it easier and I finally solved it.  I think it is the
following:

1.  Mathematica 6.0 is higher speed/lower drag.  I find myself using
things I used to groan about looking up for the millionth time.  I
think Wolfram really listened to all the little gripes.  I believe the
liberty of the "obvious use" is indespensable.  Never having to look
up Display again to suppress output!!!  The language is becoming much
more consistent.  ";" suppresses output!

2.  In addition, I like the new google style help.  I wish it would
default to typing so I didn't have to delete what was there.  Or at
least highlight it.

3.  What wasn't there is finally there.  The graphics commands are
MUCH, MUCH better. Rotatable graphics that stay rotated when rendering
again is awesome.  I'm also addicted to Manipulate[].  Most
incredible.

4.  At work, I haven't had to resort to other programs because
Mathematica wasn't the best choice.  This is extremely nice.  BTW,
There's a "temporal" advantage with procedural programming that hasn't
been apparant to me in functional or rule.  Still working on it. Maybe
someone can help.  If I have
lis={{1,10},{2,10},...{9,10},{11,20},{12,20}...{19,20}

How do I use functional and/or rule to determine where the second
number (lis[[i,2]]) jumped from 10 to 20 to 30 and save the pair.
Assuming there was noise, I only want to store the first 10->20, then
look for 20->30 and so on.  So in time, I want my search to change as
I progress through the list.  Any input appreciated!

5. What is there, is better.  ListPlot is one example.  I am using
colors features that were less accessible to me in 5.2.

6.  Very few gotchas.  I have only found one, though it keeps biting
me.  If I have two lists, one from 0-100 in both axis and the other
from 0-1000 in both axis, Show[] will truncate!

lisA = Table[i^2, {i, 0, 1000}];
lisB = Table[i, {i, 0, 100}];
p1 = ListPlot[lisA, Joined -> True];
p2 = ListPlot[lisB, Joined -> True];
Show[p1, p2]
Show[p2, p1]

The first plot parameter to Show[] determines truncation.  5.2 did not
do this!!  Of course, change Joined to PlotJoined for 5.2.  A small
gotcha, but never the less a gotcha that burned me once already.  My
fault.  New is not worse, just different.  To me, Show[] simply
Showed.  Now it is not.  PlotRange->All fixes this.  I wish there was
a way to default to All for Show[].

One small, small inconsitency is BaseX number handling.  BaseForm
outputs some pretty to the eye format, but is harder to work with.  I

ToBase[{"String",NumberBaseFrom},
NumberBaseTo,
ToBase[{Number,10},
NumberBaseTo,

Output rules would be {"String",BaseNumber} when NaseNumber was not
equal to 10.  Or {Number,10}.  If someone wants to use this, they will
need to know lists.  This is a highly re-usable skill.  To convert a
list of binary strings is somewhat sumbersome.

lis = {"1111", "0100"};
Map[ ToExpression["2^^" <> #] &, lis]

Not exactly intuitive based on other experiences with Mathematica.
Still do able.  I guess the other way, the user must create:
lis = {{"1111",2}, {"0100",2}};

Maybe
ToBase[String,
NumberBaseFrom,
NumberBaseTo,
ToBase[Number,
10,   (*Implicit, but still stated for consistency  *)
NumberBaseTo,

ToBase["1111", 2, 10]
15

ToBase[15, 10, 2, 8]
"00001111"

The user would have to keep track of what base the string was in. This
is probably a lot easier than anything else.

I go through this to indicate I have trouble thinking of anything
defintively better.  I don't envy Wolfram's task in continually
improving Mathematica.  I appreciate the results.

Nice job to Wolfram.  Can't wait to see 6.1 :)

Best Regards,
Paul

```

• Prev by Date: Re: Evaluation Question
• Next by Date: Re: Evaluation Question
• Previous by thread: Re: missing from 6.0 documentation
• Next by thread: Re: Mathematica 6.0 easier for me ... (small review)