On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:09:16PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from sympy import *
f= Function(f)
You dont need this. f is now a arbitary function.
x=symbols('x')
f=exp(x*x)*log(x*x)-x
And now, f is a sympy expression.
from sympy.numerics.optimize import secant
now I want to
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:08:47AM +0200, Friedrich Hagedorn wrote:
In [27]: f=Lambda(x, exp(x*x)*log(x*x)-x)
In [29]: f(2.0)
Out[29]: -2 + exp(4)*log(4)
I think this is not the expected behavior, but you can do
In [30]: f(2.0).evalf()
Out[30]: 73.68910751852562519599736335
The
Hi skunkwerk,
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 5:40 AM, skunkwerk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
great project... i'm trying to write 3d geometry file exporter for
the plotting function - and I just need to access all the vertices/
colors; could someone guide me as to how to get started?
Quick
Indeed that seems to work just fine for me so I don't have a need for
a patch to the pattern matching. It looks like sympy wins over maxima
for me due to ease of use and the fact that it is pure python.
Thanks for the package,
John.
On Apr 14, 4:07 pm, Mateusz Paprocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can sympy do nonlinear equation solving?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL
I understand that there are other ways of doing this that may be
numerically more efficient, but it seems to me that the expectation
that you should be able to call a function of one variable in this
fashion (or even a function of two variables as e.g. g=x*y+x/y ;
g(4,2) ) seems like a
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:44:16AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the function of two variables, the natural assumption is that
f(0,1) means x=0 and y=1 because that's alphabetical order - that's
how nearly everyone does it in the symbolic math world (just think
back to algebra and
Hi,
When unicode is available, we draw things nicely
In [1]: sin(x/y)
Out[1]:
⎛x⎞
sin⎜─⎟
⎝y⎠
In [2]: (x/y, x**2, 1)
Out[2]:
⎛x 2 ⎞
⎜─, x , 1⎟
⎝y ⎠
In [3]: [x/y, x**2, 1]
Out[3]:
⎡x 2 ⎤
⎢─, x , 1⎥
⎣y ⎦
But recently an issue arose about how best is it to draw
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 05:01:47PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I'm a physicist, too, and I still expect to see f(x,y,z) in that
order... on the other hand, I also expect f(r, theta, phi) in that
order, and that breaks all the rules, so your point is well-taken. :)
What about P(x, y,
