Author: fab...@fseoane.net
Date: Thu Jul 16 15:18:31 2009
New Revision: 3251
Modified:
wiki/FrontPage.wiki
Log:
Edited wiki page through web user interface.
Modified: wiki/FrontPage.wiki
==
--- wiki/FrontPage.wiki
Comment #4 on issue 1468 by smichr: problems with quartic root solver
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1468
There is a sign error in the original routine. The definitions of A and B
should be
A = (u-v)/4
B = (u+v)/4
/c
--
You received this message because you are listed in
Comment #14 on issue 1490 by ryanlists: LatexPrinter doprint inline=None
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1490
OK, I think I have this fixed and the corresponding changes made to the
tests. The
result is now in my latex_mode branch.
--
You received this message because you
Comment #5 on issue 1468 by smichr: problems with quartic root solver
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1468
There is a sign error in the original routine when there are not 4 real
roots. The
definitions of A and B when there are 2 or 4 complex roots should be
A = (u-v)/4
B =
Updates:
Labels: Milestone-Release0.6.6
Comment #8 on issue 1473 by fab...@fseoane.net: __mod__ does not work on
reals
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1473
I encountered this bug while doing complex exponentials:
In [1]: oo % 2
Status: Accepted
Owner: hazelnusse
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 1540 by hazelnusse: match returns nan instead of 0
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1540
Python 2.6.2 console for SymPy 0.6.5.rc2-git
In [1]: from sympy import I, oo, Wild, pi
In [2]: arg = I*oo
Comment #7 on issue 1467 by ted.ho...@earthlink.net: sorting values with
imaginary numbers in radical
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1467
OK, here is a patch for Inequality and StrictInequality with some tests. I
think this takes care of the symptom,
but there are still
Comment #8 on issue 1467 by ted.ho...@earthlink.net: sorting values with
imaginary numbers in radical
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1467
Oops, here is the actual patch...
Attachments:
1467g.patch 2.9 KB
--
You received this message because you are listed in the
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview
Comment #9 on issue 1467 by ondrej.certik: sorting values with imaginary
numbers in radical
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1467
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:16:10PM -0600, Ondrej Certik wrote:
Hi,
SymPy was accepted both for the tutorial and a 40 min talk at the
SciPy 2009 conference:
http://conference.scipy.org/schedule
http://conference.scipy.org/abstract?id=3
That's great news. This way we will have two
Hi,
I was curious, so here is how to use cython with sympy:
get my cython branch, e.g. for example by:
git clone git://github.com/certik/sympy.git
cd sympy
git co -b cython origin/cython
then run in isympy:
In [1]: time divisors(10**8)
CPU times: user 10.70 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 10.70 s
william ratcliff wrote:
Hi! My student, William Flynn, has been working a lot this summer
using sympy--thanks for all of the efforts on this project. We're
doing some work in a windows environment and find that pretty printing
(to generate pngs) still has a problem. Our hack at the
william ratcliff wrote:
I just wanted to check--will the patches for noncommutative numbers be
included in this release?
No if you are asking for the patches on issue
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1358
By the way, after the release I would like to start a discussion about
Aaron S. Meurer a écrit :
Use cse() (common subexpression elimination). It will replace the
logs with dummy variables, which you can then see is a polynomial.
In [8]: cse((log(x) + 1)-((log(x)**3+7)))
Out[8]: ([(x0, log(x))], [-6 + x0 - x0**3])
Why the ioutput is like this ? I've tried
Christophe wrote:
FIRST QUESTION
So why [(x0, log(x))] is not simply (x0, log(x)) ? Same
question for [x0*(1 + x0)*cos(y) + x0**2] ?
That is how cse works. It stands for common subexpression elimination. You are
probably using it in way that is more specific that the general
Sorry, I was on my way to bed when I checked my email one last time.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Ryan Kraussryanli...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmmm. I may have pushed the wrong branch. That patch doesn't look
right.
Toon Verstraelen a écrit :
That is how cse works. It stands for common subexpression elimination. You
are
probably using it in way that is more specific that the general purpose of
cse.
It might very well be that some expressions have multiple common
subexpressions.
Try for example:
I think I did two things to cause the confussion:
1. I changed the name of the branch from inline to latex_mode (you may have
caught that)
2. I think I pushed to github without committing. This is probably the main
problem.
The patch is attached. I will fix the tests shortly.
On Thu, Jul 16,
Hello,
suppose that we have the following expression :
(x**2+1)*(log(x+4)-7)
I would like to know that is a product and to have :
(x**2+1) and (log(x+4)-7).
Secundly, in
(log(x+4)-7)
I would like to have the fisrt level function log.
What do I mean by first
OK, so this is now a patch discussion on the regular mailing list, but I
fixed the tests and pushed all the changes to my latex_mode branch.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Ryan Krauss ryanli...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I did two things to cause the confussion:
1. I changed the name of the
Christophe wrote:
Hello,
suppose that we have the following expression :
(x**2+1)*(log(x+4)-7)
I would like to know that is a product and to have :
(x**2+1) and (log(x+4)-7).
You need to play a little with the args attribute. Try this
y = (x**2+1)*(log(x+4)-7)
Toon Verstraelen a écrit :
Christophe wrote:
Hello,
suppose that we have the following expression :
(x**2+1)*(log(x+4)-7)
I would like to know that is a product and to have :
(x**2+1) and (log(x+4)-7).
You need to play a little with the args attribute.
Ondrej Certik wrote:
The absolute number one priority is:
* merge Fabian's assumptions branch and get rid of the old assumptions
if we didn't manage nothing else, we have to manage this, it's very,
very important.
Although, I'm not so familiar with the internals of the new assumption
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Toon
Verstraelentoon.verstrae...@ugent.be wrote:
Ondrej Certik wrote:
The absolute number one priority is:
* merge Fabian's assumptions branch and get rid of the old assumptions
if we didn't manage nothing else, we have to manage this, it's very,
very
So I was trying to try out the parallel testing that Ondrej has setup
in his par branch (see this old thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy/browse_thread/thread/379f13863348f80/af9d58ab53418e0f?lnk=gstq=parallel#af9d58ab53418e0f
, and here is Ondrej's branch:
OK. I didn't realize that I had to run the process in a separate
terminal. I worked when I did that. I think the other thing is still
a bug.
Aaron Meurer
On Jul 16, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Aaron S. Meurerasmeu...@gmail.com
wrote:
So
Never mind. I was referring to the mec = client.MultiEngineClient()
command, but it seems that you need to have ipcluster running for that
to work too.
Aaron Meurer
On Jul 16, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Aaron S. Meurerasmeu...@gmail.com
SymPy 0.6.5 has been finally released on July 17, 2009.
Source distribution can be downloaded from
http://sympy.googlecode.com/files/sympy-0.6.5.tar.gz
Windows binaries can be downloaded from
http://sympy.googlecode.com/files/sympy-0.6.5.win32.exe
About SymPy
---
SymPy is a Python
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Fabian Pedregosafab...@fseoane.net wrote:
SymPy 0.6.5 has been finally released on July 17, 2009.
Great job. Time to open the beer.
Ondrej
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Yep. It is definitely faster:
$ time ./bin/test
testing
real8m18.517s
user4m6.898s
sys 0m4.019s
$ time python t.py (with ipcluster local -n 2)
testing
real5m31.959s
user0m0.602s
sys 0m0.290s
$ time python t.py (with ipcluster local -n 4)
testing
real4m30.470s
user
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Aaron S. Meurerasmeu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. It is definitely faster:
$ time ./bin/test
testing
real 8m18.517s
user 4m6.898s
sys 0m4.019s
$ time python t.py (with ipcluster local -n 2)
testing
real 5m31.959s
user 0m0.602s
sys
I reran the tests with 8 threads on my machine and watched it in the
built in GUI process manager on the Mac (Activity Monitor), and I see
what you mean. The load is distributed evenly until near the end,
when the processes drop one by one and only one is left. I don't
think it matters
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Aaron S. Meurerasmeu...@gmail.com wrote:
I reran the tests with 8 threads on my machine and watched it in the
built in GUI process manager on the Mac (Activity Monitor), and I see
what you mean. The load is distributed evenly until near the end,
when the
33 matches
Mail list logo
