Creating my own function AtomQ and NumericQ

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

I want to create my own functions AtomQ and NumericQ.
For example, I already create some functions (IntegerQ,EvenQ,OddQ,PrimeQ):

meuIntegerQ[_Integer] := True
meuIntegerQ[_] := False

meuEvenQ[n_Integer] /; Divisible[n, 2] := True
meuEvenQ[_] := False

meuOddQ[n_Integer] /; Divisible[n, 2] := True
meuOddQ[_] := False

meuPrimeQ[1] = False;
meuPrimeQ[2] = True;
meuPrimeQ[n_Integer /; n > 2] := Length[Divisors[n]] == 2

How can I create a function that does the same at AtomQ and NumericQ like the examples.

Ps: This is just for exercise.

edited Aug 31 at 21:38

Jason B.

45.7k382175

asked Aug 31 at 20:08

Mateus

37016

1

What are the traits you expect out of something that gives True for AtomQ?
â€“Â Jason B.
Aug 31 at 20:10

"yields True if expr is an expression which cannot be divided into subexpressions, and yields False otherwise. " @JasonB.
â€“Â Mateus
Aug 31 at 20:42

2

Just keep in mind that definition doesn't even really apply to AtomQ
â€“Â Jason B.
Aug 31 at 20:46

Can you explain why you want to re-implement AtomQ and NumericQ? It is not possible to do this perfectly. These functions are too deeply intertwined with the rest of Mathematica. E.g. did you know you could assign to NumericQ and that it would affect other functions too?
â€“Â Szabolcs
Sep 1 at 9:51

"How can I create a function that does the same at AtomQ and NumericQ like the examples." In the strict sense, the answer is: you can't. If your actual question is: "What do these functons really do?" then please ask that instead.
â€“Â Szabolcs
Sep 1 at 9:52

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

I want to create my own functions AtomQ and NumericQ.
For example, I already create some functions (IntegerQ,EvenQ,OddQ,PrimeQ):

meuIntegerQ[_Integer] := True
meuIntegerQ[_] := False

meuEvenQ[n_Integer] /; Divisible[n, 2] := True
meuEvenQ[_] := False

meuOddQ[n_Integer] /; Divisible[n, 2] := True
meuOddQ[_] := False

meuPrimeQ[1] = False;
meuPrimeQ[2] = True;
meuPrimeQ[n_Integer /; n > 2] := Length[Divisors[n]] == 2

How can I create a function that does the same at AtomQ and NumericQ like the examples.

Ps: This is just for exercise.

edited Aug 31 at 21:38

Jason B.

45.7k382175

asked Aug 31 at 20:08

Mateus

37016

1

What are the traits you expect out of something that gives True for AtomQ?
â€“Â Jason B.
Aug 31 at 20:10

"yields True if expr is an expression which cannot be divided into subexpressions, and yields False otherwise. " @JasonB.
â€“Â Mateus
Aug 31 at 20:42

2

Just keep in mind that definition doesn't even really apply to AtomQ
â€“Â Jason B.
Aug 31 at 20:46

Can you explain why you want to re-implement AtomQ and NumericQ? It is not possible to do this perfectly. These functions are too deeply intertwined with the rest of Mathematica. E.g. did you know you could assign to NumericQ and that it would affect other functions too?
â€“Â Szabolcs
Sep 1 at 9:51

"How can I create a function that does the same at AtomQ and NumericQ like the examples." In the strict sense, the answer is: you can't. If your actual question is: "What do these functons really do?" then please ask that instead.
â€“Â Szabolcs
Sep 1 at 9:52

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

I want to create my own functions AtomQ and NumericQ.
For example, I already create some functions (IntegerQ,EvenQ,OddQ,PrimeQ):

meuIntegerQ[_Integer] := True
meuIntegerQ[_] := False

meuEvenQ[n_Integer] /; Divisible[n, 2] := True
meuEvenQ[_] := False

meuOddQ[n_Integer] /; Divisible[n, 2] := True
meuOddQ[_] := False

meuPrimeQ[1] = False;
meuPrimeQ[2] = True;
meuPrimeQ[n_Integer /; n > 2] := Length[Divisors[n]] == 2

How can I create a function that does the same at AtomQ and NumericQ like the examples.

Ps: This is just for exercise.

edited Aug 31 at 21:38

Jason B.

45.7k382175

asked Aug 31 at 20:08

Mateus

37016

I want to create my own functions AtomQ and NumericQ.
For example, I already create some functions (IntegerQ,EvenQ,OddQ,PrimeQ):

meuIntegerQ[_Integer] := True
meuIntegerQ[_] := False

meuEvenQ[n_Integer] /; Divisible[n, 2] := True
meuEvenQ[_] := False

meuOddQ[n_Integer] /; Divisible[n, 2] := True
meuOddQ[_] := False

meuPrimeQ[1] = False;
meuPrimeQ[2] = True;
meuPrimeQ[n_Integer /; n > 2] := Length[Divisors[n]] == 2

How can I create a function that does the same at AtomQ and NumericQ like the examples.

Ps: This is just for exercise.

edited Aug 31 at 21:38

Jason B.

45.7k382175

asked Aug 31 at 20:08

Mateus

37016

edited Aug 31 at 21:38

Jason B.

45.7k382175

edited Aug 31 at 21:38

Jason B.

45.7k382175

edited Aug 31 at 21:38

Jason B.

45.7k382175

asked Aug 31 at 20:08

Mateus

37016

asked Aug 31 at 20:08

Mateus

37016

asked Aug 31 at 20:08

Mateus

37016

1

What are the traits you expect out of something that gives True for AtomQ?
â€“Â Jason B.
Aug 31 at 20:10

"yields True if expr is an expression which cannot be divided into subexpressions, and yields False otherwise. " @JasonB.
â€“Â Mateus
Aug 31 at 20:42

2

Just keep in mind that definition doesn't even really apply to AtomQ
â€“Â Jason B.
Aug 31 at 20:46

Can you explain why you want to re-implement AtomQ and NumericQ? It is not possible to do this perfectly. These functions are too deeply intertwined with the rest of Mathematica. E.g. did you know you could assign to NumericQ and that it would affect other functions too?
â€“Â Szabolcs
Sep 1 at 9:51

"How can I create a function that does the same at AtomQ and NumericQ like the examples." In the strict sense, the answer is: you can't. If your actual question is: "What do these functons really do?" then please ask that instead.
â€“Â Szabolcs
Sep 1 at 9:52

add a commentÂ |Â

1

What are the traits you expect out of something that gives True for AtomQ?
â€“Â Jason B.
Aug 31 at 20:10

"yields True if expr is an expression which cannot be divided into subexpressions, and yields False otherwise. " @JasonB.
â€“Â Mateus
Aug 31 at 20:42

2

Just keep in mind that definition doesn't even really apply to AtomQ
â€“Â Jason B.
Aug 31 at 20:46

Can you explain why you want to re-implement AtomQ and NumericQ? It is not possible to do this perfectly. These functions are too deeply intertwined with the rest of Mathematica. E.g. did you know you could assign to NumericQ and that it would affect other functions too?
â€“Â Szabolcs
Sep 1 at 9:51

"How can I create a function that does the same at AtomQ and NumericQ like the examples." In the strict sense, the answer is: you can't. If your actual question is: "What do these functons really do?" then please ask that instead.
â€“Â Szabolcs
Sep 1 at 9:52

What are the traits you expect out of something that gives True for AtomQ?
â€“Â Jason B.
Aug 31 at 20:10

"yields True if expr is an expression which cannot be divided into subexpressions, and yields False otherwise. " @JasonB.
â€“Â Mateus
Aug 31 at 20:42

Just keep in mind that definition doesn't even really apply to AtomQ
â€“Â Jason B.
Aug 31 at 20:46

Can you explain why you want to re-implement AtomQ and NumericQ? It is not possible to do this perfectly. These functions are too deeply intertwined with the rest of Mathematica. E.g. did you know you could assign to NumericQ and that it would affect other functions too?
â€“Â Szabolcs
Sep 1 at 9:51

"How can I create a function that does the same at AtomQ and NumericQ like the examples." In the strict sense, the answer is: you can't. If your actual question is: "What do these functons really do?" then please ask that instead.
â€“Â Szabolcs
Sep 1 at 9:52

add a commentÂ |Â

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

up vote
4
down vote

accepted

For NumericQ you could try:

numericQ[n_] := MatchQ[n//N, _Real|_Complex]

Example:

numericQ[Pi]

True

answered Aug 31 at 21:27

Carl Woll

56k272146

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
3
down vote

Here's an attempt at recognizing atoms:

atomQ[x_] := Head[List @@ x] =!= List || Quiet[Head[x] @@ List @@ x =!= x]

First, try to Apply List to the expression. With non-atoms this yields a List of their content, but with the simpler atoms it silently fails, yielding the atom. If that happens, you have an atom. For complicated "atoms" like SparseArray and Association, this yields a List. For a normal, non-atomic object, this List is just the original object with a different Head, so you may reconstruct the original by Applying the original head. This fails, often noisily, with complex atoms, so that's the second test. Quiet suppresses the noise.

answered Aug 31 at 21:08

John Doty

6,0941924

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

AtomQ[expr] yields True if expr is an expression which cannot be divided into subexpressions, and yields False otherwise.

A simple enough function,

atomQ[obj_] := Length[obj] === 0

That this sometimes disagrees with the system function AtomQ seems like an issue with the documentation.

answered Sep 1 at 1:39

Jason B.

45.7k382175

True for non-atomic objects that are empty, like . False for complicated "atoms" like SparseArray and Association when they have contents. So, this doesn't work.
â€“Â John Doty
Sep 1 at 1:50

@JohnDoty If SparseArray and Association don't follow the documentation for AtomQ, I can't be blamed for that.
â€“Â Jason B.
Sep 1 at 1:55

But the machinery to divide expressions into subexpressions doesn't work for SparseArray and Association. It yields data, but that data is incomplete, inadequate to reconstruct the original expression.
â€“Â John Doty
Sep 1 at 2:16

I stand by my answer to this question. I'm available in chat if you want to talk more about the inconsistencies in the language.
â€“Â Jason B.
Sep 1 at 2:21

1

It would be very sad if the following weren't true: Length @ Range[10] == Length @ SparseArray @ Range[10]. Basically, some structural functions have been overloaded to handle atomic objects. This doesn't mean that the atomic object can be subdivided into subexpressions.
â€“Â Carl Woll
Sep 1 at 4:01

Â |Â
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\$","\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "387"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);

);

draft saved

draft discarded

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f181024%2fcreating-my-own-function-atomq-and-numericq%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

up vote
4
down vote

accepted

For NumericQ you could try:

numericQ[n_] := MatchQ[n//N, _Real|_Complex]

Example:

numericQ[Pi]

True

answered Aug 31 at 21:27

Carl Woll

56k272146

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
4
down vote

accepted

For NumericQ you could try:

numericQ[n_] := MatchQ[n//N, _Real|_Complex]

Example:

numericQ[Pi]

True

answered Aug 31 at 21:27

Carl Woll

56k272146

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
4
down vote

accepted

For NumericQ you could try:

numericQ[n_] := MatchQ[n//N, _Real|_Complex]

Example:

numericQ[Pi]

True

answered Aug 31 at 21:27

Carl Woll

56k272146

For NumericQ you could try:

numericQ[n_] := MatchQ[n//N, _Real|_Complex]

Example:

numericQ[Pi]

True

answered Aug 31 at 21:27

Carl Woll

56k272146

answered Aug 31 at 21:27

Carl Woll

56k272146

answered Aug 31 at 21:27

Carl Woll

56k272146

answered Aug 31 at 21:27

Carl Woll

56k272146

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
3
down vote

Here's an attempt at recognizing atoms:

atomQ[x_] := Head[List @@ x] =!= List || Quiet[Head[x] @@ List @@ x =!= x]

answered Aug 31 at 21:08

John Doty

6,0941924

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
3
down vote

Here's an attempt at recognizing atoms:

atomQ[x_] := Head[List @@ x] =!= List || Quiet[Head[x] @@ List @@ x =!= x]

answered Aug 31 at 21:08

John Doty

6,0941924

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
3
down vote

Here's an attempt at recognizing atoms:

atomQ[x_] := Head[List @@ x] =!= List || Quiet[Head[x] @@ List @@ x =!= x]

answered Aug 31 at 21:08

John Doty

6,0941924

Here's an attempt at recognizing atoms:

atomQ[x_] := Head[List @@ x] =!= List || Quiet[Head[x] @@ List @@ x =!= x]

answered Aug 31 at 21:08

John Doty

6,0941924

answered Aug 31 at 21:08

John Doty

6,0941924

answered Aug 31 at 21:08

John Doty

6,0941924

answered Aug 31 at 21:08

John Doty

6,0941924

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

AtomQ[expr] yields True if expr is an expression which cannot be divided into subexpressions, and yields False otherwise.

A simple enough function,

atomQ[obj_] := Length[obj] === 0

That this sometimes disagrees with the system function AtomQ seems like an issue with the documentation.

answered Sep 1 at 1:39

Jason B.

45.7k382175

True for non-atomic objects that are empty, like . False for complicated "atoms" like SparseArray and Association when they have contents. So, this doesn't work.
â€“Â John Doty
Sep 1 at 1:50

@JohnDoty If SparseArray and Association don't follow the documentation for AtomQ, I can't be blamed for that.
â€“Â Jason B.
Sep 1 at 1:55

But the machinery to divide expressions into subexpressions doesn't work for SparseArray and Association. It yields data, but that data is incomplete, inadequate to reconstruct the original expression.
â€“Â John Doty
Sep 1 at 2:16

I stand by my answer to this question. I'm available in chat if you want to talk more about the inconsistencies in the language.
â€“Â Jason B.
Sep 1 at 2:21

1

It would be very sad if the following weren't true: Length @ Range[10] == Length @ SparseArray @ Range[10]. Basically, some structural functions have been overloaded to handle atomic objects. This doesn't mean that the atomic object can be subdivided into subexpressions.
â€“Â Carl Woll
Sep 1 at 4:01

Â |Â
show 1 more comment

up vote
1
down vote

AtomQ[expr] yields True if expr is an expression which cannot be divided into subexpressions, and yields False otherwise.

A simple enough function,

atomQ[obj_] := Length[obj] === 0

That this sometimes disagrees with the system function AtomQ seems like an issue with the documentation.

answered Sep 1 at 1:39

Jason B.

45.7k382175

True for non-atomic objects that are empty, like . False for complicated "atoms" like SparseArray and Association when they have contents. So, this doesn't work.
â€“Â John Doty
Sep 1 at 1:50

@JohnDoty If SparseArray and Association don't follow the documentation for AtomQ, I can't be blamed for that.
â€“Â Jason B.
Sep 1 at 1:55

But the machinery to divide expressions into subexpressions doesn't work for SparseArray and Association. It yields data, but that data is incomplete, inadequate to reconstruct the original expression.
â€“Â John Doty
Sep 1 at 2:16

I stand by my answer to this question. I'm available in chat if you want to talk more about the inconsistencies in the language.
â€“Â Jason B.
Sep 1 at 2:21

1

It would be very sad if the following weren't true: Length @ Range[10] == Length @ SparseArray @ Range[10]. Basically, some structural functions have been overloaded to handle atomic objects. This doesn't mean that the atomic object can be subdivided into subexpressions.
â€“Â Carl Woll
Sep 1 at 4:01

Â |Â
show 1 more comment

up vote
1
down vote

AtomQ[expr] yields True if expr is an expression which cannot be divided into subexpressions, and yields False otherwise.

A simple enough function,

atomQ[obj_] := Length[obj] === 0

That this sometimes disagrees with the system function AtomQ seems like an issue with the documentation.

answered Sep 1 at 1:39

Jason B.

45.7k382175

AtomQ[expr] yields True if expr is an expression which cannot be divided into subexpressions, and yields False otherwise.

A simple enough function,

atomQ[obj_] := Length[obj] === 0

That this sometimes disagrees with the system function AtomQ seems like an issue with the documentation.

answered Sep 1 at 1:39

Jason B.

45.7k382175

answered Sep 1 at 1:39

Jason B.

45.7k382175

answered Sep 1 at 1:39

Jason B.

45.7k382175

answered Sep 1 at 1:39

Jason B.

45.7k382175

True for non-atomic objects that are empty, like . False for complicated "atoms" like SparseArray and Association when they have contents. So, this doesn't work.
â€“Â John Doty
Sep 1 at 1:50

@JohnDoty If SparseArray and Association don't follow the documentation for AtomQ, I can't be blamed for that.
â€“Â Jason B.
Sep 1 at 1:55

But the machinery to divide expressions into subexpressions doesn't work for SparseArray and Association. It yields data, but that data is incomplete, inadequate to reconstruct the original expression.
â€“Â John Doty
Sep 1 at 2:16

I stand by my answer to this question. I'm available in chat if you want to talk more about the inconsistencies in the language.
â€“Â Jason B.
Sep 1 at 2:21

1

It would be very sad if the following weren't true: Length @ Range[10] == Length @ SparseArray @ Range[10]. Basically, some structural functions have been overloaded to handle atomic objects. This doesn't mean that the atomic object can be subdivided into subexpressions.
â€“Â Carl Woll
Sep 1 at 4:01

Â |Â
show 1 more comment

True for non-atomic objects that are empty, like . False for complicated "atoms" like SparseArray and Association when they have contents. So, this doesn't work.
â€“Â John Doty
Sep 1 at 1:50

@JohnDoty If SparseArray and Association don't follow the documentation for AtomQ, I can't be blamed for that.
â€“Â Jason B.
Sep 1 at 1:55

But the machinery to divide expressions into subexpressions doesn't work for SparseArray and Association. It yields data, but that data is incomplete, inadequate to reconstruct the original expression.
â€“Â John Doty
Sep 1 at 2:16

I stand by my answer to this question. I'm available in chat if you want to talk more about the inconsistencies in the language.
â€“Â Jason B.
Sep 1 at 2:21

1

It would be very sad if the following weren't true: Length @ Range[10] == Length @ SparseArray @ Range[10]. Basically, some structural functions have been overloaded to handle atomic objects. This doesn't mean that the atomic object can be subdivided into subexpressions.
â€“Â Carl Woll
Sep 1 at 4:01

True for non-atomic objects that are empty, like . False for complicated "atoms" like SparseArray and Association when they have contents. So, this doesn't work.
â€“Â John Doty
Sep 1 at 1:50

@JohnDoty If SparseArray and Association don't follow the documentation for AtomQ, I can't be blamed for that.
â€“Â Jason B.
Sep 1 at 1:55

But the machinery to divide expressions into subexpressions doesn't work for SparseArray and Association. It yields data, but that data is incomplete, inadequate to reconstruct the original expression.
â€“Â John Doty
Sep 1 at 2:16

I stand by my answer to this question. I'm available in chat if you want to talk more about the inconsistencies in the language.
â€“Â Jason B.
Sep 1 at 2:21

It would be very sad if the following weren't true: Length @ Range[10] == Length @ SparseArray @ Range[10]. Basically, some structural functions have been overloaded to handle atomic objects. This doesn't mean that the atomic object can be subdivided into subexpressions.
â€“Â Carl Woll
Sep 1 at 4:01

Â |Â
show 1 more comment

draft saved

draft discarded

draft saved

draft discarded

Post as a guest

Name

Search This Blog

Iyfjky