Re: problem plotting "N-d object"

[Sergei Steshenko]

--- On Tue, 2/21/12, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: Ben Abbott <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: problem plotting "N-d object"
> To: "CdeMills" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2012, 5:29 AM
> On Feb 21, 2012, at 5:29 AM, CdeMills
> wrote:
> 
> > bpabbott wrote
> > 
> >> I had thought broadcasting would require the dot
> type operator ".+" and
> >> that "+" would behave in a strict/pedantic manner
> (as with multiplication
> >> and division).
> >> 
> >> In any event, I do think there is a parallel to be
> drawn for N-d plotting. 
> > 
> > Ben,
> > 
> > I had the same idea.
> > 
> > I often run simulations, producing 2D arrays at each
> step, and collating
> > everything in a 3D array.
> > 
> > Then I plot everything as:
> > 
> > hold on; resu = [];
> > for inds = (Nsimu:-1:1)
> >  resu(inds, 1) = plot(somevar(:, :, inds));
> > endfor
> > hold off
> > 
> > That is, the third dim is "peeled" slice by slice, and
> all 2D graphs are
> > concatenated together.  Similary, the result is a
> vector a graph handles.
> > Would this seems an acceptable way to "plot" a 3D array
> ?
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Pascal
> 
> For plotting that is a good solution.
> 
> In my work, I work with a lot of frequency dependent
> systems, which we represent as matrices ... matrices with
> different elements for each frequency.
> 
> For this purpose., we use the 3rd dimension to represent
> frequency. This allows us to peal off frequency and do the
> usual linear algebra.
> 
> We'd also like to plot the elements of a matrix by something
> like ...
> 
>     plot (f, A(1,1,:), f, A(1,2,:), f,
> A(2,1,:), f, A(2,2,:)) 
> 
> Instead of that we have to squeeze() each frequency
> dependent matrix element first.
> 
> There are ways to work around this. For example, we often
> permute, then plot, permute, and continue with the linear
> algebra. Other times we use squeeze().
> 
> I'd prefer to just use the syntax above.
> 
> Ben
> 

"I'd prefer to just use the syntax above" - I think that was my original 
request, wasn't it ?

Thanks,
  Sergei.