Skip to main content
Mathematica

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

10
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelE2 I was aware of that discussion. I mentioned your answer in it in a comment before posting my answer here. I also updated my answer to include those links. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 10, 2016 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't see the comment. I just meant to link the questions. I also (mistakenly) thought you might not have seen it, and you might want to answer the other question. There's also this question $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 10, 2016 at 18:33
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelE2 Thanks, I'll consider giving answers to those questions. Unfortunately with this approach infinite ranges and singularity handling are problematic, so I am kind of hesitant to recommend using it in less specific settings. (I mentioned that in my answer.) $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 10, 2016 at 18:53
  • $\begingroup$ @ShutaoTang The rule ArrayOfFunctionsRule expects an array of functions to be given to its option "Functions". So either reshape expr into an array, use "Functions"->Flatten[exprFS]. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 11, 2016 at 14:31
  • $\begingroup$ @AntonAntonov Re: Infinite ranges. Could you explain why they are problematic with ArrayOfFunctionsRule? I tried using it with"Functions"->{Exp[-x], 1/2 Exp[-x]} for {x,0,Infinity} and NIntegrate transformed the range to [0,1] while using this rule, so it wasn't a problem for that array. I'm trying to understand what you have in mind that might be problematic. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 1, 2017 at 19:02