Is Orange translucent?
AES
PlotStyle->{{Thick, Blue}, {Thick, Orange}]
Both functions run along on top of the x axis (i.e., have y(x)=0) for
part of their range.
In these regions, the black axis line shows through -- or on top of? --
both curves. The Blue curve is dark enough that you don't notice this;
but with the Orange curve -- or maybe a Green one -- it looks terrible.
Are the axes drawn before or after the curves? (I can see arguments
both ways on which of these ought to be the default.)
Or are the Colors in the PlotStyle translucent?
Any simple way to switch this behavior?
Curtis Osterhoudt
Plot[{Sin[x], Cos[x]}, {x, -4, 4},
PlotStyle -> {{Thick, Blue}, {Thick, Orange}},
Method -> {"AxesInFront" -> False}]
I have no idea where to find it in the supplied documentation, either.
--
==================================
Curtis Osterhoudt
cfo@remove_this.lanl.and_this.gov
PGP Key ID: 0x4DCA2A10
==================================
David Park
PlotStyle -> Directive[Thick, Orange],
Method -> {"AxesInFront" -> False}]
David Park
djm...@comcast.net
http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/
Jens-Peer Kuska
the axes are drawn after the curves.
Regards
Jens
Murray Eisenberg
f[x_] := Piecewise[{{-1, x < 1}, {0, 1 <= x < 2}, {1, x >= 2}}]
Plot[f[x], {x, 0, 3}, PlotStyle -> {Thickness[0.01], Green}]
Plot[f[x], {x, 0, 3}, PlotStyle -> {Thickness[0.01], Orange}]
... in both cases, actually, with additional option ImageSize->8*72 so
that I could better see the effect. And yes, the x-axis and tick marks
do show through the green or orange segment of the function's graph.
But this looks perfectly attractive and informative to me: I would not
want to have the axis or the tick marks obscured. If I were to insist
on obscuring the axes and tick marks, I would simply choose a very
intense, dark color such as Blue.
I don't know how one would determine whether the axes are drawn last,
since if you take the FullForm of the plot, the axes are represented
merely by an expression Rule[Axes,True].
--
Murray Eisenberg mur...@math.umass.edu
Mathematics & Statistics Dept.
Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H)
University of Massachusetts 413 545-2859 (W)
710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801
Amherst, MA 01003-9305
Syd Geraghty
Thanks for the input below which identified (at least for me) the
Method -> {"AxesInFront" -> False} applicable to Plot[].
My question to you and the group is how can one find out what Methods
exist in general in Mathematica.
I have found no searchable, consistent, way to find out what methods
exist for given functions or are applicable in general for a group of
functions.
It appears to be a generic problem in the searchable Mathematica
documentation (Online or shipped documentation).
Is there a simple solution? It would be very helpful to know it!
Cheers ... Syd
Syd Geraghty B.Sc, M.Sc.
Mathematica 7.0.1 for Mac OS X x86 (64 - bit) (18th February 2009)
MacOS X V 10.5.6
MacBook Pro 2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 2GB RAM
PS I did quite a lot of different Internet and Mathematica search
queries and for instance found one of the few references to
identifying a new Method option:
Re: Serious Problem with GridLines
To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
Subject: Re: Serious Problem with GridLines
From: "David Park" <djmpark at comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 06:04:43 -0400 (EDT)
References: <f8s2ub$1q3$1...@smc.vnet.net>
I reveived a nice answer from Chris Chiasson who passed on an answer
from James Mulnix at WRI Technical Support.
It appears that Graphics now has Method as an option and among the
methods are the following:
Method -> {"AxesInFront" -> True/False}
Method -> {"GridLinesInFront" -> True/False}
and that gives the control we need.
The way you discovered the two Method options above was local
knowledge from James Mulnix via Chris Chiasson to you.
I think this points to the fact that Methods are added in an ad hoc
way and not integrated into the documentation in a consistent way that
I can find.
Also I seem to recall a previous post to this group complaining about
the "Among the methods are ...." without being able to get to the
complete list.
David Park
Graphics. But should they be documented in every 2D plot type? That's
probably a lot of work. It's one of the disadvantages of organizing the
graphics around set-piece plot types.
David Park
http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/
From: Syd Geraghty [mailto:sydge...@me.com]
Hi David,
Thanks for the input below which identified (at least for me) the Method ->
{"AxesInFront" -> False} applicable to Plot[].
My question to you and the group is how can one find out what Methods exist
in general in Mathematica.
I have found no searchable, consistent, way to find out what methods exist
for given functions or are applicable in general for a group of functions.
It appears to be a generic problem in the searchable Mathematica
documentation (Online or shipped documentation).
Is there a simple solution? It would be very helpful to know it!
Cheers ... Syd
Syd Geraghty B.Sc, M.Sc.
Mathematica 7.0.1 for Mac OS X x86 (64 - bit) (18th February 2009)
MacOS X V 10.5.6
MacBook Pro 2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 2GB RAM
PS I did quite a lot of different Internet and Mathematica search queries
and for instance found one of the few references to identifying a new Method
option:
Re: Serious Problem with GridLines
. To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
. Subject: Re: Serious Problem with GridLines
. From: "David Park" <djmpark at comcast.net>
. Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 06:04:43 -0400 (EDT)
. References: <f8s2ub$1q3$1...@smc.vnet.net>
_____
Murray Eisenberg
argument "Properties" so that, for example,
Options[Plot, Method, "Values"]
would list all the legitimate targets for Method when it is used as an
option for Plot. (This does raise a question, though, as to what form
the result should take in the case of an option that does not take just
one of a fixed set of values but rather values of a certain form. For
example, what should the result be of Options[Plot, PlotStyle,
"Values"]?) Perhaps there's a more descriptive word than "Values".
Better yet, of course, would be actual documentation in the
Documentation Center!
--
Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
> The "AxesInFront" and "GridLinesInFront" options should be documented in
> Graphics. But should they be documented in every 2D plot type? That's
> probably a lot of work. It's one of the disadvantages of organizing the
> graphics around set-piece plot types.
>
> David Park
Do you have to turn every one of your posts into an advertisment? :/
-- m
Leonid Shifrin
I am sure you will get better solutions, but here is what I did:
This makes a list of all doc files that describe symbols (names of
Mathematica built-in functions)
In[1] =
docfiles =
FileNames["*.nb", $InstallationDirectory <> $PathnameSeparator <>
ToFileName[{"Documentation", "English", "System",
"ReferencePages", "Symbols"}]];
In[2] =
Length[docfiles]
Out[2] = 2338
(This is for M6).
Then I used brute force (took about 2.5 mins on my 5 year old laptop):
In[3] =
(methodFiles =
StringReplace[
Select[docfiles,
MemberQ[Import[#], ButtonBox["Method", ___], Infinity] &],
LongestMatch[__ ~~ $PathnameSeparator] :> ""]) // Timing
Out[3] =
{145.219, {"ButtonBoxOptions.nb", "Button.nb", "ContourPlot3D.nb",
"ContourPlot.nb", "DensityPlot.nb", "Discriminant.nb",
"EvaluationMonitor.nb", "FindClusters.nb", "FindFit.nb",
"FindMaximum.nb", "FindMinimum.nb", "Graphics3D.nb", "Graphics.nb",
"GraphPlot3D.nb", "GraphPlot.nb", "Inverse.nb", "LeastSquares.nb",
"LinearProgramming.nb", "LinearSolve.nb", "ListContourPlot3D.nb",
"ListContourPlot.nb", "ListDensityPlot.nb", "ListLinePlot.nb",
"ListPlot3D.nb", "ListSurfacePlot3D.nb", "method.nb", "NCache.nb",
"NDSolve.nb", "NIntegrate.nb", "NMaximize.nb", "NMinimize.nb",
"NProduct.nb", "NSum.nb", "NullSpace.nb", "Orthogonalize.nb",
"ParametricPlot3D.nb", "ParametricPlot.nb", "PerformanceGoal.nb",
"PiecewiseExpand.nb", "Plot3D.nb", "Plot.nb", "PolarPlot.nb",
"PossibleZeroQ.nb", "RandomChoice.nb", "RandomComplex.nb",
"RandomInteger.nb", "RandomReal.nb", "RandomSample.nb",
"RegionPlot3D.nb", "RegionPlot.nb", "ReliefPlot.nb",
"RevolutionPlot3D.nb", "RowReduce.nb", "SeedRandom.nb",
"SphericalPlot3D.nb", "StepMonitor.nb", "Total.nb"}}
In[4] =
methodFiles // Length
Out[4] =
57
This seems to be it (again, M6). Further automatic processing seems to be
hard (but not impossible), so it is probably easier to just read through
these files - there are not so many. There is also a possibility that some
Method settings are not described in the file dedicated to a particular
function of interest, but rather given as parts of examples in some other
doc file - these are missed in this simplistic approach. But such cases, if
they exist,
would IMO indicate flaws in the documentation anyway, since Method settings
should be described, in the first place, in the doc for a given function for
which we wish to set the Method option. What I did was only to filter
the docs, but everything really depends on the consistency of the
documentation.
Regards,
Leonid
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Syd Geraghty <sydge...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Thanks for the input below which identified (at least for me) the
> Method -> {"AxesInFront" -> False} applicable to Plot[].
>
> My question to you and the group is how can one find out what Methods
> exist in general in Mathematica.
>
> I have found no searchable, consistent, way to find out what methods
> exist for given functions or are applicable in general for a group of
> functions.
>
> It appears to be a generic problem in the searchable Mathematica
> documentation (Online or shipped documentation).
>
> Is there a simple solution? It would be very helpful to know it!
>
> Cheers ... Syd
>
>
> Syd Geraghty B.Sc, M.Sc.
>
> sydge...@mac.com
>
> Mathematica 7.0.1 for Mac OS X x86 (64 - bit) (18th February 2009)
> MacOS X V 10.5.6
> MacBook Pro 2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 2GB RAM
>
>
> PS I did quite a lot of different Internet and Mathematica search
> queries and for instance found one of the few references to
> identifying a new Method option:
>
> Re: Serious Problem with GridLines
>
> To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
> Subject: Re: Serious Problem with GridLines
> From: "David Park" <djmpark at comcast.net>
> Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 06:04:43 -0400 (EDT)
> References: <f8s2ub$1q3$1...@smc.vnet.net>
> I reveived a nice answer from Chris Chiasson who passed on an answer
> from James Mulnix at WRI Technical Support.
>
> It appears that Graphics now has Method as an option and among the
> methods are the following:
>
> Method -> {"AxesInFront" -> True/False}
> Method -> {"GridLinesInFront" -> True/False}
>
> and that gives the control we need.
> The way you discovered the two Method options above was local
> knowledge from James Mulnix via Chris Chiasson to you.
>
> I think this points to the fact that Methods are added in an ad hoc
> way and not integrated into the documentation in a consistent way that
> I can find.
>
> Also I seem to recall a previous post to this group complaining about
> the "Among the methods are ...." without being able to get to the
> complete list.
>
>
> On Jun 30, 2009, at 3:35 AM, David Park wrote:
>
> > Plot[Max[0, Sin[x]], {x, 0, 2 \[Pi]},
> > PlotStyle -> Directive[Thick, Orange],
> > Method -> {"AxesInFront" -> False}]
> >
> >
> > David Park
> > djm...@comcast.net
> > http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/ <http://home.comcast.net/%7Edjmpark/>
>
>
AES
> My question to you and the group is how can one find out what Methods
> exist in general in Mathematica.
>
>
> It appears that Graphics now has Method as an option and among the
> methods are the following:
>
> Method -> {"AxesInFront" -> True/False}
> Method -> {"GridLinesInFront" -> True/False}
>
> and that gives the control we need.
> The way you discovered the two Method options above was local
> knowledge from James Mulnix via Chris Chiasson to you.
If the two Method options listed just above were simply noted -- briefly
would be fine -- near the top in the Help page for Graphics, that would:
1) Give someone working on a graphic the immediate help they needed.
2) And gently alert them to the fact that an option called "Method"
existed, so they could dig further into it if they wanted to. (This is,
in fact, the way humans learn language, isn't it?)
WRI documentation all too often seems to think that if the Help page for
FunctionA contains two dozen clickable links, some one of which
eventually leads to a definition of ImportantOptionB, that's all that's
needed. The user is apparently expected to click, read, and absorb all
of what's in all of those links before using FunctionA (or break off the
task on which they're trying to use FunctionA for a couple of days,
until they can send a query to c.s-s.m.m and get an answer back).
AES
Just for the record, I don't share the sentiment voiced in this post.
DrMajorBob
Nor do I. With or without Presentations, Mr. Park knows more about
Mathematica graphics -- and informative graphics in general -- than the
lot of us.
Bobby
TerryH
>
>> On Jul 1, 7:34 am, "David Park" <djmp...@comcast.net> wrote:
in
>>> Graphics. But should they be documented in every 2D plot type? That's
he
>>> graphics around set-piece plot types.
>>>
>>> David Park
>> Do you have to turn every one of your posts into an advertisment? :/
>>
>> -- m
>
> Just for the record, I don't share the sentiment voiced in this post.
>
I would also like to echo AES's comment. David Park brings a lot of
value-added content (especially Graphics related) to this newsgroup. I,
for one, value his postings.
......T.L. Harter, PhD
Murray Eisenberg
paradigm that requires an Epilog, Prolog, or other circumlocution in
order to combine graphics with a Plot, etc. It would obviously be
inadvisable to replace outright that built-in structure with the
structure provided by Park's Presentations package. But it would be
nice to have the latter available in the kernel as an alternative -- or
at the very least as a package shipped with Mathematica.
AES wrote:
> In article <h2i4mb$91r$1...@smc.vnet.net>,
> Mariano Su=E1rez-Alvarez <mariano.su...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 1, 7:34 am, "David Park" <djmp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> The "AxesInFront" and "GridLinesInFront" options should be documented=
in
>>> Graphics. But should they be documented in every 2D plot type? That's=
>>> probably a lot of work. It's one of the disadvantages of organizing t=
he
>>> graphics around set-piece plot types.
>>>
>>> David Park
>> Do you have to turn every one of your posts into an advertisment? :/
>>
>> -- m
>
> Just for the record, I don't share the sentiment voiced in this post.
>
--
Andrzej Kozlowski
On 4 Jul 2009, at 19:42, DrMajorBob wrote:
> Nor do I. With or without Presentations, Mr. Park knows more about
> Mathematica graphics -- and informative graphics in general -- than
> the
> lot of us.
I think one should avoid such generalizations when they concern people
other than the person making this sort of statement. I personally do
not claim to know much about graphics, but I have in the past used
J.P. Kuska's MathGL 3D I would say he does know an awful lot about
Mathematica graphics (and graphics in general). Jens' knowledge may be
of a different kind from David Parks's knowledge but I can see no
grounds at all for dismissing it in such a causal way.
Andrzej Kozlowski
E. Martin-Serrano
at all. I think it is a potential ease to use different paradigm to
(Mathematica) graphics instead. Easier by far. It goes far beyond plotting
lines and patching colors. It saves a lot of time. On the other hand, if
someone posts a question anyone is free to deliver what she/he thinks is a
suitable response.
In my opinion that is all.
E. Martin-Serrano
-----Original Message-----
From: TerryH [mailto:tlha...@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Is Orange translucent? - What Methods exist?
AES wrote:
> In article <h2i4mb$91r$1...@smc.vnet.net>,
> Mariano Su=E1rez-Alvarez <mariano.su...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 1, 7:34 am, "David Park" <djmp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> The "AxesInFront" and "GridLinesInFront" options should be documented=
in
>>> Graphics. But should they be documented in every 2D plot type? That's
>>> probably a lot of work. It's one of the disadvantages of organizing t=
he
>>> graphics around set-piece plot types.
>>>
>>> David Park
>> Do you have to turn every one of your posts into an advertisment? :/
>>
>> -- m
>
> Just for the record, I don't share the sentiment voiced in this post.
>
I would also like to echo AES's comment. David Park brings a lot of
David Park
indeed have a deep knowledge of underlying graphics algorithms and formats -
things that I know little about. And more than that, I am always learning
things from the many people who participate in MathGroup - from both
old-timer gurus and from those posting "simple" questions.
DrMajorBob
We'd know nothing about Presentations OR MathGL 3D, however, if the OP's
sentiment prevailed.
Bobby
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:47:25 -0500, Andrzej Kozlowski <ak...@mimuw.edu.pl>
wrote:
>
> On 4 Jul 2009, at 19:42, DrMajorBob wrote:
>
>> Nor do I. With or without Presentations, Mr. Park knows more about
>> Mathematica graphics -- and informative graphics in general -- than
>> the
>> lot of us.
>
> I think one should avoid such generalizations when they concern people
> other than the person making this sort of statement. I personally do
> not claim to know much about graphics, but I have in the past used
> J.P. Kuska's MathGL 3D I would say he does know an awful lot about
> Mathematica graphics (and graphics in general). Jens' knowledge may be
> of a different kind from David Parks's knowledge but I can see no
> grounds at all for dismissing it in such a causal way.
>
> Andrzej Kozlowski
>
>
peter lindsay
"Presentations" package gives an extraordinary boost to the graphical
capabilities of Mathematica.
A small subset of examples using the Presentations package are shown at
http://blackbook.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~Peter/djmpark/html/, and more info about
it is found at David's own pages:
http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/DrawGraphicsPage.html
I should also add that I am constantly amazed by the patience and generosity
of people like David and Jens-Peer [ and many others ] in answering "newbie"
questions from people like myself. We should also be thankful to the regular
contributors from members of Wolfram who clearly keep an eye on developments
in this group.
Peter
2009/7/6 E. Martin-Serrano <eMartin...@telefonica.net>