[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Pattern matching
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg116241] Re: Pattern matching
*From*: DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com>
*Date*: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 05:05:23 -0500 (EST)
No... the rule is never applied to fact[-1].
If it were, there WOULD be an infinite loop, since fact[-1] -> -1 fact[-2]
(not -1 times the previous zero).
The previous zero, multiplied by fact[-1] (unevaluated) is zero, and
there's no rule for zero, so ReplaceRepeated stops.
Bobby
On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 05:07:14 -0600, Leonid Shifrin <lshifr at gmail.com>
wrote:
> This is not a bug. The second rule indeed has no chance to execute. The
> reason that this does not iterate infinitely is that when the first rule
> applies for n = 0, we get zero as a result. The next time the rule is
> applied for n = -1, we get zero again, since we multiply -1 and the
> previous
> zero. Since the two consecutive results are the same, ReplaceRepeated
> stops.
>
> I used a similar example in my book, where I made the same statement
> that
> we should expect infinite iteration, which is apparently incorrect for
> this
> particular problem, as you just pointed out. Will add this to a list of
> things I have to correct.
>
> Regards,
> Leonid
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 1:35 PM, StatsMath <stats.math8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Have a question regarding the applicaiton of pattern rules:
>>
>> fact[4] //. {fact[n_] :> n fact[n-1], fact[0] -> 1}
>>
>> This is a bug since fact[0] needs to be defined 1st, but I expected
>> the above to grind away idefnitely but it returned a a value 0,
>> instead of an infininte computation.
>>
>> Can you help me understand why the above returns 0?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
--
DrMajorBob at yahoo.com
Prev by Date:
**Re: Why this cannot be solved**
Next by Date:
**Re: Filtering data from numerical minimization**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Pattern matching**
Next by thread:
**Re: Pattern matching**
| |