Can output of one kernel be called from another on the same PC?
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I have two instances of Mathematica running on the same PC. Can I call the output of one from the other?
For example if Out[100] is on kernel1 how do I refer to it on kernel2?
front-end
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I have two instances of Mathematica running on the same PC. Can I call the output of one from the other?
For example if Out[100] is on kernel1 how do I refer to it on kernel2?
front-end
Maybe naming your evaluator? reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Evaluator.html
– Chris Degnen
Dec 5 at 22:40
Is this a solution for you? mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/14166/…
– Mike Honeychurch
Dec 5 at 23:39
This is the cleanest and most robust solution I can think of: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/14176/38205
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 1:13
1
Do you mean two Mathematica instances or two different kernels under the same FE/Mathematica?
– Kuba♦
Dec 6 at 8:49
@Kuba If I have two open notebooks how do I tell if they are from two kernels or two instances of Mathematica? If I try to open another Mathematica it asks for a license. So my guess is that mine are two kernels.
– Maesumi
Dec 6 at 20:29
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I have two instances of Mathematica running on the same PC. Can I call the output of one from the other?
For example if Out[100] is on kernel1 how do I refer to it on kernel2?
front-end
I have two instances of Mathematica running on the same PC. Can I call the output of one from the other?
For example if Out[100] is on kernel1 how do I refer to it on kernel2?
front-end
front-end
edited Dec 5 at 22:27
asked Dec 5 at 22:18
Maesumi
421210
421210
Maybe naming your evaluator? reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Evaluator.html
– Chris Degnen
Dec 5 at 22:40
Is this a solution for you? mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/14166/…
– Mike Honeychurch
Dec 5 at 23:39
This is the cleanest and most robust solution I can think of: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/14176/38205
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 1:13
1
Do you mean two Mathematica instances or two different kernels under the same FE/Mathematica?
– Kuba♦
Dec 6 at 8:49
@Kuba If I have two open notebooks how do I tell if they are from two kernels or two instances of Mathematica? If I try to open another Mathematica it asks for a license. So my guess is that mine are two kernels.
– Maesumi
Dec 6 at 20:29
|
show 1 more comment
Maybe naming your evaluator? reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Evaluator.html
– Chris Degnen
Dec 5 at 22:40
Is this a solution for you? mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/14166/…
– Mike Honeychurch
Dec 5 at 23:39
This is the cleanest and most robust solution I can think of: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/14176/38205
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 1:13
1
Do you mean two Mathematica instances or two different kernels under the same FE/Mathematica?
– Kuba♦
Dec 6 at 8:49
@Kuba If I have two open notebooks how do I tell if they are from two kernels or two instances of Mathematica? If I try to open another Mathematica it asks for a license. So my guess is that mine are two kernels.
– Maesumi
Dec 6 at 20:29
Maybe naming your evaluator? reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Evaluator.html
– Chris Degnen
Dec 5 at 22:40
Maybe naming your evaluator? reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Evaluator.html
– Chris Degnen
Dec 5 at 22:40
Is this a solution for you? mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/14166/…
– Mike Honeychurch
Dec 5 at 23:39
Is this a solution for you? mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/14166/…
– Mike Honeychurch
Dec 5 at 23:39
This is the cleanest and most robust solution I can think of: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/14176/38205
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 1:13
This is the cleanest and most robust solution I can think of: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/14176/38205
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 1:13
1
1
Do you mean two Mathematica instances or two different kernels under the same FE/Mathematica?
– Kuba♦
Dec 6 at 8:49
Do you mean two Mathematica instances or two different kernels under the same FE/Mathematica?
– Kuba♦
Dec 6 at 8:49
@Kuba If I have two open notebooks how do I tell if they are from two kernels or two instances of Mathematica? If I try to open another Mathematica it asks for a license. So my guess is that mine are two kernels.
– Maesumi
Dec 6 at 20:29
@Kuba If I have two open notebooks how do I tell if they are from two kernels or two instances of Mathematica? If I try to open another Mathematica it asks for a license. So my guess is that mine are two kernels.
– Maesumi
Dec 6 at 20:29
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
Update
(comparison to other answers)
This answer doesn't require the remote kernel to do anything, in contrast I believe to the linked answers as well as @b3m2a1's answer. For example, if the remote kernel is computing something, it will not be able to send results to the inspecting kernel.
(multiple Mathematica sessions)
If you indeed have multiple Mathematica sessions, then the Front End will not have access to both kernels. In this case you may use the Channel or Socket frameworks to communicate between the kernels, but I won't bother with this unless the question is clarified.
(improved answer)
Also, I cleaned up the function a bit, so that it is simpler, and so that it can work with arbitrary expressions (not just Out
).
SetAttributes[RemoteValue, HoldFirst]
RemoteValue[expr_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
BoxData @ DynamicBox[Compress @ expr, Evaluator->kernel],
"PlainText"
]
And, the same example as before:
RemoteValue[Out[28], "Local 2"]
% + 1
1596
1597
Original answer
There is probably a much simpler method, but here is one possibility:
RemoteValue[line_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
Cell[
BoxData @ ToBoxes @ Dynamic[Compress @ Out[line], Evaluator -> kernel],
"Output"
],
"PlainText"
]
It's hard to simulate multiple kernels in an answer, but this is what I get when I use the above:
RemoteValue[28, "Local 2"]
% + 1
1596
1597
where the input in the "Local 2" kernel was 798 2
, and the second line shows that the actual value is available.
Another possibility if you just want to see the output is to use Dynamic
:
r = Dynamic[Out[28], Evaluator->"Local 2"]
1596
but in this case the actual value is not available:
Head @ r
Dynamic
Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something likeMathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]]
I feel and specify theEvaluator
...
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 5:44
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Update
Here's how we'd do this for your case specifically. Assuming we created and connected a tunnel called "shuttle"
. First we do this on kernel 1:
TunnelWrite["shuttle", Evaluate@Out[32]]
And then on kernel 2:
TunnelRead["shuttle", Hold]
{Hold[{1, 2, 3, 9}]}
The hold is optional. I just added it for flavor.
Original
Here's another option that works directly at the MathLink level and so has more efficient data transport.
I wrote a layer or five on top of LinkCreate
and friends to help ease some of the dangers and difficulties of using Links
for inter-kernel communication.
The package is called KernelTunnels. Here's an example:
We can see I create a tunnel with TunnelCreate
in the first kernel (just a link+metadata) called "shuttle"
. The tunnel data is written to a temporary .mx file so as to allow good unified interprocess communication.
In the second kernel I then connect to the same tunnel with TunnelConnect
. At this point the two are attached to each other and can communicate freely.
TunnelWrite
will write to the LinkObject
and TunnelRead
will drain everything off the link, wrapping it in the head passed as the second argument first. Note that TunnelWrite
writes the unevaluated expression by default, so you'll need to use Evaluate
if you want to circumvent this behavior.
There's also some stuff in there for adding handlers for TunnelRead
(it can be different on both ends).
If this is useful I can properly document the API, but these functions are the heart of it.
Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
– Kuba♦
Dec 6 at 8:00
Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. AlthoughLinkConnect
might work just without the shared memory argument.
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 8:47
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
Update
(comparison to other answers)
This answer doesn't require the remote kernel to do anything, in contrast I believe to the linked answers as well as @b3m2a1's answer. For example, if the remote kernel is computing something, it will not be able to send results to the inspecting kernel.
(multiple Mathematica sessions)
If you indeed have multiple Mathematica sessions, then the Front End will not have access to both kernels. In this case you may use the Channel or Socket frameworks to communicate between the kernels, but I won't bother with this unless the question is clarified.
(improved answer)
Also, I cleaned up the function a bit, so that it is simpler, and so that it can work with arbitrary expressions (not just Out
).
SetAttributes[RemoteValue, HoldFirst]
RemoteValue[expr_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
BoxData @ DynamicBox[Compress @ expr, Evaluator->kernel],
"PlainText"
]
And, the same example as before:
RemoteValue[Out[28], "Local 2"]
% + 1
1596
1597
Original answer
There is probably a much simpler method, but here is one possibility:
RemoteValue[line_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
Cell[
BoxData @ ToBoxes @ Dynamic[Compress @ Out[line], Evaluator -> kernel],
"Output"
],
"PlainText"
]
It's hard to simulate multiple kernels in an answer, but this is what I get when I use the above:
RemoteValue[28, "Local 2"]
% + 1
1596
1597
where the input in the "Local 2" kernel was 798 2
, and the second line shows that the actual value is available.
Another possibility if you just want to see the output is to use Dynamic
:
r = Dynamic[Out[28], Evaluator->"Local 2"]
1596
but in this case the actual value is not available:
Head @ r
Dynamic
Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something likeMathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]]
I feel and specify theEvaluator
...
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 5:44
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
Update
(comparison to other answers)
This answer doesn't require the remote kernel to do anything, in contrast I believe to the linked answers as well as @b3m2a1's answer. For example, if the remote kernel is computing something, it will not be able to send results to the inspecting kernel.
(multiple Mathematica sessions)
If you indeed have multiple Mathematica sessions, then the Front End will not have access to both kernels. In this case you may use the Channel or Socket frameworks to communicate between the kernels, but I won't bother with this unless the question is clarified.
(improved answer)
Also, I cleaned up the function a bit, so that it is simpler, and so that it can work with arbitrary expressions (not just Out
).
SetAttributes[RemoteValue, HoldFirst]
RemoteValue[expr_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
BoxData @ DynamicBox[Compress @ expr, Evaluator->kernel],
"PlainText"
]
And, the same example as before:
RemoteValue[Out[28], "Local 2"]
% + 1
1596
1597
Original answer
There is probably a much simpler method, but here is one possibility:
RemoteValue[line_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
Cell[
BoxData @ ToBoxes @ Dynamic[Compress @ Out[line], Evaluator -> kernel],
"Output"
],
"PlainText"
]
It's hard to simulate multiple kernels in an answer, but this is what I get when I use the above:
RemoteValue[28, "Local 2"]
% + 1
1596
1597
where the input in the "Local 2" kernel was 798 2
, and the second line shows that the actual value is available.
Another possibility if you just want to see the output is to use Dynamic
:
r = Dynamic[Out[28], Evaluator->"Local 2"]
1596
but in this case the actual value is not available:
Head @ r
Dynamic
Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something likeMathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]]
I feel and specify theEvaluator
...
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 5:44
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
Update
(comparison to other answers)
This answer doesn't require the remote kernel to do anything, in contrast I believe to the linked answers as well as @b3m2a1's answer. For example, if the remote kernel is computing something, it will not be able to send results to the inspecting kernel.
(multiple Mathematica sessions)
If you indeed have multiple Mathematica sessions, then the Front End will not have access to both kernels. In this case you may use the Channel or Socket frameworks to communicate between the kernels, but I won't bother with this unless the question is clarified.
(improved answer)
Also, I cleaned up the function a bit, so that it is simpler, and so that it can work with arbitrary expressions (not just Out
).
SetAttributes[RemoteValue, HoldFirst]
RemoteValue[expr_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
BoxData @ DynamicBox[Compress @ expr, Evaluator->kernel],
"PlainText"
]
And, the same example as before:
RemoteValue[Out[28], "Local 2"]
% + 1
1596
1597
Original answer
There is probably a much simpler method, but here is one possibility:
RemoteValue[line_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
Cell[
BoxData @ ToBoxes @ Dynamic[Compress @ Out[line], Evaluator -> kernel],
"Output"
],
"PlainText"
]
It's hard to simulate multiple kernels in an answer, but this is what I get when I use the above:
RemoteValue[28, "Local 2"]
% + 1
1596
1597
where the input in the "Local 2" kernel was 798 2
, and the second line shows that the actual value is available.
Another possibility if you just want to see the output is to use Dynamic
:
r = Dynamic[Out[28], Evaluator->"Local 2"]
1596
but in this case the actual value is not available:
Head @ r
Dynamic
Update
(comparison to other answers)
This answer doesn't require the remote kernel to do anything, in contrast I believe to the linked answers as well as @b3m2a1's answer. For example, if the remote kernel is computing something, it will not be able to send results to the inspecting kernel.
(multiple Mathematica sessions)
If you indeed have multiple Mathematica sessions, then the Front End will not have access to both kernels. In this case you may use the Channel or Socket frameworks to communicate between the kernels, but I won't bother with this unless the question is clarified.
(improved answer)
Also, I cleaned up the function a bit, so that it is simpler, and so that it can work with arbitrary expressions (not just Out
).
SetAttributes[RemoteValue, HoldFirst]
RemoteValue[expr_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
BoxData @ DynamicBox[Compress @ expr, Evaluator->kernel],
"PlainText"
]
And, the same example as before:
RemoteValue[Out[28], "Local 2"]
% + 1
1596
1597
Original answer
There is probably a much simpler method, but here is one possibility:
RemoteValue[line_, kernel_] := Uncompress @ First @ FrontEndExecute @ ExportPacket[
Cell[
BoxData @ ToBoxes @ Dynamic[Compress @ Out[line], Evaluator -> kernel],
"Output"
],
"PlainText"
]
It's hard to simulate multiple kernels in an answer, but this is what I get when I use the above:
RemoteValue[28, "Local 2"]
% + 1
1596
1597
where the input in the "Local 2" kernel was 798 2
, and the second line shows that the actual value is available.
Another possibility if you just want to see the output is to use Dynamic
:
r = Dynamic[Out[28], Evaluator->"Local 2"]
1596
but in this case the actual value is not available:
Head @ r
Dynamic
edited Dec 6 at 17:08
answered Dec 5 at 22:57
Carl Woll
66.4k385174
66.4k385174
Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something likeMathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]]
I feel and specify theEvaluator
...
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 5:44
add a comment |
Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something likeMathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]]
I feel and specify theEvaluator
...
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 5:44
Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something like
MathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]]
I feel and specify the Evaluator
...– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 5:44
Clever to use the boxes as a transfer protocol. There ought to be a way to make a single call into something like
MathLink`CallFrontEndHeld[FrontEnd`Value["expr"]]
I feel and specify the Evaluator
...– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 5:44
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Update
Here's how we'd do this for your case specifically. Assuming we created and connected a tunnel called "shuttle"
. First we do this on kernel 1:
TunnelWrite["shuttle", Evaluate@Out[32]]
And then on kernel 2:
TunnelRead["shuttle", Hold]
{Hold[{1, 2, 3, 9}]}
The hold is optional. I just added it for flavor.
Original
Here's another option that works directly at the MathLink level and so has more efficient data transport.
I wrote a layer or five on top of LinkCreate
and friends to help ease some of the dangers and difficulties of using Links
for inter-kernel communication.
The package is called KernelTunnels. Here's an example:
We can see I create a tunnel with TunnelCreate
in the first kernel (just a link+metadata) called "shuttle"
. The tunnel data is written to a temporary .mx file so as to allow good unified interprocess communication.
In the second kernel I then connect to the same tunnel with TunnelConnect
. At this point the two are attached to each other and can communicate freely.
TunnelWrite
will write to the LinkObject
and TunnelRead
will drain everything off the link, wrapping it in the head passed as the second argument first. Note that TunnelWrite
writes the unevaluated expression by default, so you'll need to use Evaluate
if you want to circumvent this behavior.
There's also some stuff in there for adding handlers for TunnelRead
(it can be different on both ends).
If this is useful I can properly document the API, but these functions are the heart of it.
Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
– Kuba♦
Dec 6 at 8:00
Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. AlthoughLinkConnect
might work just without the shared memory argument.
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 8:47
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Update
Here's how we'd do this for your case specifically. Assuming we created and connected a tunnel called "shuttle"
. First we do this on kernel 1:
TunnelWrite["shuttle", Evaluate@Out[32]]
And then on kernel 2:
TunnelRead["shuttle", Hold]
{Hold[{1, 2, 3, 9}]}
The hold is optional. I just added it for flavor.
Original
Here's another option that works directly at the MathLink level and so has more efficient data transport.
I wrote a layer or five on top of LinkCreate
and friends to help ease some of the dangers and difficulties of using Links
for inter-kernel communication.
The package is called KernelTunnels. Here's an example:
We can see I create a tunnel with TunnelCreate
in the first kernel (just a link+metadata) called "shuttle"
. The tunnel data is written to a temporary .mx file so as to allow good unified interprocess communication.
In the second kernel I then connect to the same tunnel with TunnelConnect
. At this point the two are attached to each other and can communicate freely.
TunnelWrite
will write to the LinkObject
and TunnelRead
will drain everything off the link, wrapping it in the head passed as the second argument first. Note that TunnelWrite
writes the unevaluated expression by default, so you'll need to use Evaluate
if you want to circumvent this behavior.
There's also some stuff in there for adding handlers for TunnelRead
(it can be different on both ends).
If this is useful I can properly document the API, but these functions are the heart of it.
Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
– Kuba♦
Dec 6 at 8:00
Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. AlthoughLinkConnect
might work just without the shared memory argument.
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 8:47
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
Update
Here's how we'd do this for your case specifically. Assuming we created and connected a tunnel called "shuttle"
. First we do this on kernel 1:
TunnelWrite["shuttle", Evaluate@Out[32]]
And then on kernel 2:
TunnelRead["shuttle", Hold]
{Hold[{1, 2, 3, 9}]}
The hold is optional. I just added it for flavor.
Original
Here's another option that works directly at the MathLink level and so has more efficient data transport.
I wrote a layer or five on top of LinkCreate
and friends to help ease some of the dangers and difficulties of using Links
for inter-kernel communication.
The package is called KernelTunnels. Here's an example:
We can see I create a tunnel with TunnelCreate
in the first kernel (just a link+metadata) called "shuttle"
. The tunnel data is written to a temporary .mx file so as to allow good unified interprocess communication.
In the second kernel I then connect to the same tunnel with TunnelConnect
. At this point the two are attached to each other and can communicate freely.
TunnelWrite
will write to the LinkObject
and TunnelRead
will drain everything off the link, wrapping it in the head passed as the second argument first. Note that TunnelWrite
writes the unevaluated expression by default, so you'll need to use Evaluate
if you want to circumvent this behavior.
There's also some stuff in there for adding handlers for TunnelRead
(it can be different on both ends).
If this is useful I can properly document the API, but these functions are the heart of it.
Update
Here's how we'd do this for your case specifically. Assuming we created and connected a tunnel called "shuttle"
. First we do this on kernel 1:
TunnelWrite["shuttle", Evaluate@Out[32]]
And then on kernel 2:
TunnelRead["shuttle", Hold]
{Hold[{1, 2, 3, 9}]}
The hold is optional. I just added it for flavor.
Original
Here's another option that works directly at the MathLink level and so has more efficient data transport.
I wrote a layer or five on top of LinkCreate
and friends to help ease some of the dangers and difficulties of using Links
for inter-kernel communication.
The package is called KernelTunnels. Here's an example:
We can see I create a tunnel with TunnelCreate
in the first kernel (just a link+metadata) called "shuttle"
. The tunnel data is written to a temporary .mx file so as to allow good unified interprocess communication.
In the second kernel I then connect to the same tunnel with TunnelConnect
. At this point the two are attached to each other and can communicate freely.
TunnelWrite
will write to the LinkObject
and TunnelRead
will drain everything off the link, wrapping it in the head passed as the second argument first. Note that TunnelWrite
writes the unevaluated expression by default, so you'll need to use Evaluate
if you want to circumvent this behavior.
There's also some stuff in there for adding handlers for TunnelRead
(it can be different on both ends).
If this is useful I can properly document the API, but these functions are the heart of it.
edited Dec 6 at 4:05
answered Dec 6 at 3:56
b3m2a1
25.9k256152
25.9k256152
Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
– Kuba♦
Dec 6 at 8:00
Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. AlthoughLinkConnect
might work just without the shared memory argument.
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 8:47
add a comment |
Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
– Kuba♦
Dec 6 at 8:00
Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. AlthoughLinkConnect
might work just without the shared memory argument.
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 8:47
Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
– Kuba♦
Dec 6 at 8:00
Doesn't OP mean two MMAs as opposed to two kernels under the same FE?
– Kuba♦
Dec 6 at 8:00
Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. Although
LinkConnect
might work just without the shared memory argument.– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 8:47
Unclear...that case is just fundamentally impossible without dumping to disk, though, I think. Although
LinkConnect
might work just without the shared memory argument.– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 8:47
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f187404%2fcan-output-of-one-kernel-be-called-from-another-on-the-same-pc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Maybe naming your evaluator? reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Evaluator.html
– Chris Degnen
Dec 5 at 22:40
Is this a solution for you? mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/14166/…
– Mike Honeychurch
Dec 5 at 23:39
This is the cleanest and most robust solution I can think of: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/14176/38205
– b3m2a1
Dec 6 at 1:13
1
Do you mean two Mathematica instances or two different kernels under the same FE/Mathematica?
– Kuba♦
Dec 6 at 8:49
@Kuba If I have two open notebooks how do I tell if they are from two kernels or two instances of Mathematica? If I try to open another Mathematica it asks for a license. So my guess is that mine are two kernels.
– Maesumi
Dec 6 at 20:29