Comment #6 on issue 1362 by fred...@witherden.org: Expand support for
printing derivatives
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1362
I agree with you, Ondrej, operators are a much cleaner solution in the long
run.
Plus, support for operators would be useful in many branches of
Comment #29 on issue 1598 by mattpap: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
I have a patch for consideration...factor() in polytools should not be
returning
two arguments
I already fixed that in polys3 and written tests.
Also, I made a
Comment #30 on issue 1598 by smichr: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
The functionality for gcdfactor is there, but a simple wrapper for someone
who
doesn't want to get into Polys is not there. Compare
expr = gcdfactor(expr)
with
Comment #55 on issue 1695 by mag...@rabic.org: integral of a piecewise
function gives bad result
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1695
Not yet, sorry. There would be 3^4 testcases for union, and intersection
should have
been written without using complement, if we would want
Issue 353: piecewise functions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=353
This issue is no longer blocking issue 1695.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1695
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you
Issue 7: implement relations (, ) solving
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=7
This issue is no longer blocking issue 1695.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1695
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because
Comment #31 on issue 1598 by mattpap: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
1. I'm talking about this commit:
http://github.com/mattpap/sympy-polys/commit/8e1c2fd03f29128eefb584bce28c3ddde42dcf2c
Example:
In [3]: terms_gcd(x**3*y-x*y**3)
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview
Comment #11 on issue 1719 by Vinzent.Steinberg: implement from sympy.abc
import lower, greek
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1719
Sorry, should be fixed now. Strange that the stdlib does not work with
iterables but
expect
Comment #12 on issue 1719 by Vinzent.Steinberg: implement from sympy.abc
import lower, greek
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1719
Please pull from
g...@github.com:vks/sympy.git 1719
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #3 on issue 1753 by Vinzent.Steinberg: update pyglet
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1753
Yes, please go for it, Chris.
Thanks for reviewing, it's merged!
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview
Comment #12 on issue 1509 by Vinzent.Steinberg: spelling and grammar
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1509
Thank you! It's in.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred
Comment #32 on issue 1598 by Vinzent.Steinberg: New polynomials
manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
I think we can drop fraction(), if we don't improve it. Currently
as_numer_denom()
seems to be more powerful.
--
You received this message because you are
Comment #56 on issue 1695 by Vinzent.Steinberg: integral of a piecewise
function gives bad result
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1695
I think if we get this in with not that many tests/doctests it's still a
large
improvement to the current situation, so I would like to see
Comment #34 on issue 1598 by smichr: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
I'm running on polys3 and observe the following:
n
6*(-a + x**2)**8*(-a - 3*x**2) - 48*x**3*(-a + x**2)**6*(a*x + x**3) +
24*x*(-a +
x**2)**7*(a*x + x**3) +
Comment #35 on issue 1598 by asmeurer: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
You are right. fraction() is like as_numer_denom() except for a
little magic, but I think we should move all of the code there into
as_numer_denom() as it is
Comment #36 on issue 1598 by smichr: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
Also, is there a way to make monic work even when coefficients don't reduce
to
multiples of the leading coefficient?
###
Poly(3*x**3+5*x**2+7*x+11,x).monic()
Comment #1 on issue 1752 by smichr: setup.py test annoyances
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1752
doctest are dependent on correctly functioning code. If the code tests
indicate that
the code is failing, it doesn't make sense to see if the usage of the code
is right
or not.
Comment #37 on issue 1598 by smichr: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
re comment 35:
Yes, factor should be used whenever there is a term in the resultant Mul
that has
more than one symbol in it, otherwise it doesn't need to overwork
Comment #38 on issue 1598 by mattpap: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
Also, Poly.terms() is giving out monom, coeff whereas the old
Poly.iter_terms()
gave out coeff, monom...is this intentional?
Yes, because this is coherent with
Comment #39 on issue 1598 by mattpap: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
Forgot to say, that there always exists a suitable evaluation set. Our task
is to
find the one which results in a univariate polynomial which has exactly the
same
Comment #40 on issue 1598 by smichr: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
One other observation on polys3...when sending roots a Poly, even if the
heuristics
fail, the whole process shouldn't fail if the Poly is 4th order or less--a
call to
Comment #41 on issue 1598 by mattpap: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
Also, is there a way to make monic work even when coefficients don't
reduce to
multiples of the leading coefficient?
Yes, there is only one issue:
In [1]: f =
Comment #8 on issue 1735 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Use expr.func to get the
head of expressions.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1735
AFAICT, sympycore's head attribute is equivalent to sympy's func. ('head'
is probably
the better name)
--
You received this message because
Comment #58 on issue 1695 by mag...@rabic.org: integral of a piecewise
function gives bad result
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1695
Maybe you are right, just I am not familiar enough whith the code.
Where would you put it?
--
You received this message because you are listed
Issue 7: implement relations (, ) solving
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=7
This issue is no longer blocking issue 1695.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1695
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because
Updates:
Labels: NeedsReview
Comment #2 on issue 1752 by smichr: setup.py test annoyances
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1752
The first item is fixable by removing the if at line 170 of setup.py
The 2nd issue can be tested from the runtest4 branch at smichr's github
Updates:
Labels: NeedsReview
Comment #1 on issue 1746 by smichr: Let bin/test --random accept a seed
input
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1746
I can't test this on my system right now...does runtest4 allow you to
bin/test --random -prints out a random integer
Status: Accepted
Owner: ronan.l...@gmail.com
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium WrongResult
New issue 1756 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Division by order terms is invalid
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1756
Sympy produces the following (wrong) results:
In [11]: 1/O(1)
Out[11]: O(1)
Updates:
Blockedon: 1756
Comment #2 on issue 1747 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: nseries test failure with
bin/test --random
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1747
I think the caching problem arises because of a wrong arithmetic handling
of order
terms (see issue 1756), which
Issue 1756: Division by order terms is invalid
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1756
This issue is now blocking issue 1747.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1747
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or
Comment #3 on issue 1752 by asmeurer: setup.py test annoyances
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1752
I still have to interrupt 3 times in your branch (once for the tests, once
for the normal doctests, and once for the
sphinx doctests).
--
You received this message because you
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #2 on issue 1746 by asmeurer: Let bin/test --random accept a seed
input
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1746
The seed prints fine, but the input method doesn't work correctly:
dhcp-baca-10:sympy
Updates:
Cc: fab...@fseoane.net
Comment #59 on issue 1695 by Vinzent.Steinberg: integral of a piecewise
function gives bad result
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1695
CCing Fabian, because he's most familiar with the new assumptions code.
But I think relational
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #4 on issue 1585 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: expression expanded
indiscriminantly
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1585
This works now.
In [25]: eq=(x/neg)**-S.Half; str(eq)
Out[25]:
Comment #4 on issue 1739 by jorn.baayen: Constants 'C_i' in differential
equations confuse solver
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1739
I'm playing around with some radiation equations (involving exponentials of
the dependent variable).
How about being able to pass dsolve a
Comment #43 on issue 1598 by smichr: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
PolynomialError should be imported in polyclasses.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred
Comment #44 on issue 1598 by smichr: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
PolynomialError should be imported in polyclasses.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred
Comment #5 on issue 1739 by asmeurer: Constants 'C_i' in differential
equations confuse solver
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1739
I was just wondering what solvers it was using (what do you get with
classify_ode(yourode)?). I am not familiar with any
radiation equations.
Comment #45 on issue 1598 by mattpap: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
I went ahead and finished refactoring polytools.py and writing tests for
it. Now
coverage for this file is 100%. Also added tests for monomialtools.py and
fixed all
Comment #46 on issue 1598 by smichr: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
Also, perhaps roots_cubic and roots_quartic should use the monic function
rather than
the monic method for reasons discussed in comment 41:
###
Updates:
Cc: smichr
Comment #3 on issue 1746 by asmeurer: Let bin/test --random accept a seed
input
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1746
It's back to the way it was:
dhcp-baca-10:sympy aaronmeurer((746fc3a...)$)$./bin/test --random
Random seed used = 1260325704
Comment #47 on issue 1598 by smichr: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
or should that be exquo in line 143 of densearith.py?
return [ K.exquo(cf, c) for cf in f ]
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC
Comment #48 on issue 1598 by smichr: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
Yes, making the change in densearith.py solves the problem:
var('x');p=Poly(3*x**3+5*x**2+7*x+11)
roots(p)
{-1/3 + (65/54 + 5*21**(1/2)/18)**(1/3)*(1/2 + I*3**(1/2)/2)
Comment #4 on issue 1746 by smichr: Let bin/test --random accept a seed
input
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1746
Don't give a number with the --random flag; that just picks a random for
you. You ran
your second run with --random 1260325704; use -r 1260325704 instead.
Updates:
Labels: -PassedReview
Comment #9 on issue 1735 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Use expr.func to get the
head of expressions.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1735
I've pushed both patches in. There are more places where func could be
used, however.
--
You received
Comment #49 on issue 1598 by mattpap: New polynomials manipulation module
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1598
or should that be exquo in line 143 of densearith.py?
No, because you are changing dup_quo_ground(). See a few lines below that,
there is a
function
Thanks Ondrej,
Yes, Pow function is all right.
To my problem, pow is converted to Pow.
However it is tentative solution and I hope
pow should be treated formally.
czbebe
On 12月8日, 午後1:49, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
2009/12/7 czbebe o...@bpe.es.osaka-u.ac.jp:
Thanks Ondrej,
The problem is using strings directly in functions. The proper way to do this
is to convert the string to a SymPy object first with the sympify() function.
So for example, this would be perfectly legitimate:
from sympy import sympify, diff, S
from sympy.core.sympify import SympifyError # Note
That's sound great because that's the way I do.
Best regards.
Christophe.
2009/12/8 Aaron S. Meurer asmeu...@gmail.com
The problem is using strings directly in functions. The proper way to do
this is to convert the string to a SymPy object first with the sympify()
function. So for
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Aaron S. Meurer asmeu...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is using strings directly in functions. The proper way to do
this is to convert the string to a SymPy object first with the sympify()
function. So for example, this would be perfectly legitimate:
from sympy
Hey!
What would be a good exception to use instead of ArgumentIndexError ?
The implementation for this exception has been moved a long time ago (I
couldn't find it at least in git tree), but there's still some code left
that is utilizing it :S
It would be nice if we could get this issue fixed
51 matches
Mail list logo
