Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg106048] Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
- From: "Norbert P." <bertapozar at gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:16:13 -0500 (EST)
- References: <hhf5s3$h4o$1@smc.vnet.net>
On Dec 30, 1:17 am, AES <sieg... at stanford.edu> wrote: > The more I play with these I->-I substitution rules, the more seemingly > wildly inconsistent results emerge. For example: > > In[1]:= -I/.I->-I > > Out[1]= -I > > In[3]:= -E/.E->-E > > Out[3]= << The Esc e e Esc symbol >> > > In[4]:= -Pi/.Pi->-Pi > > Out[4]= \[Pi] > > In[5]:= -Infinity/.Infinity->-Infinity > > Out[5]= -\[Infinity] > > (In/Out[2] is removed because it was an irrelevant cell.) It might seem inconsistent, but as you can read in tutorial/ PatternsForSomeCommonTypesOfExpression: "Especially for some common kinds of expressions, the standard output format used by Mathematica is not particularly close to the full internal form. But it is the internal form that you must use in setting up patterns. " So when you look at the expressions you give: In[1]:= FullForm/@{I,-I,E,-E,Pi,-Pi,Infinity,-Infinity} Out[1]= {Complex[0,1],Complex[0,-1],E,Times[-1,E],Pi,Times [-1,Pi],DirectedInfinity[1],DirectedInfinity[-1]} Hope that helps, Norbert