Comment #3 on issue 1893 by asmeurer: integrate(log(x) * x**(k-1) * exp(-x)
/ gamma(k), (x, 0, oo)) hangs
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1893
Yes. If you just do x (no limits), Maple returns the integral unevaluated.
It doesn't look like limit can handle unevaluated
Comment #4 on issue 1893 by mattpap: integrate(log(x) * x**(k-1) * exp(-x)
/ gamma(k), (x, 0, oo)) hangs
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1893
Things like x**k can't be handled by heuristic Risch algorithm, I'm sure
that also by
the recursive version. This is a case where
Updates:
Status: Started
Owner: mattpap
Labels: Polynomial Milestone-Release0.7.0
Comment #3 on issue 1892 by mattpap: integrate(1/(x*(a+b*x)**3), x) fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1892
This is trivial to fix, and I will fix this soon.
--
You
Comment #5 on issue 1893 by mattpap: integrate(log(x) * x**(k-1) * exp(-x)
/ gamma(k), (x, 0, oo)) hangs
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1893
Here is what Mathematica gives for the indefinite integral:
In[1]:= Integrate[x^(k-1)*Exp[-x]*Log[x], x]
k
Out[1]= (-(x
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Logic Milestone-Release0.7.0
New issue 1894 by mattpap: Xor(x, 1/y) doesn't work
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1894
In [6]: Xor(x, 1/y)
---
Comment #1 on issue 1894 by mattpap: Xor(x, 1/y) doesn't work
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1894
I encountered this when working on pretty printers for logic operators,
e.g.:
In [1]: Equivalent(Implies(Or(Not(x), y, z), And(x, 1/y)), Ne(x, y))
Out[1]:
⎛
Comment #5 on issue 1276 by smichr: solve(-1 + x**2 +
0.111*(1.00 + 2.00*x)**2,x) fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1276
In 1766 it works like this:
solve(-1 + x**2 + 0.111*(1.00 +
2.00*x)**2,x)
Comment #65 on issue 966 by smichr: Can't simplify exp(2 * pi * I * a) when
a is integer
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=966
I was almost there when the latest splitting of Basic set me back again.
I'm having
doubts about whether I can keep up or not at this point. Rebases
Comment #66 on issue 966 by asmeurer: Can't simplify exp(2 * pi * I * a)
when a is integer
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=966
Maybe things would be easier if you separated commits that are not related
to each other and do not rely on
each other into separate branches.
--
Comment #67 on issue 966 by smichr: Can't simplify exp(2 * pi * I * a) when
a is integer
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=966
When working in core, and wanting to continue work until the change is
merged to
master, how do you know if your future work is going to depend on
Comment #2 on issue 1894 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Xor(x, 1/y) doesn't work
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1894
The problem with Xor(x, 1/y) is that its meaning is undefined: how do you
compute
1/True and 1/False? Nevertheless, And(x, 1/y) works, so this should too.
All that
Comment #68 on issue 966 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Can't simplify exp(2 * pi *
I * a) when a is integer
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=966
On the other hand, the bigger your branch gets, the harder it is to review
and the
longer you have maintain it to be compatible with
Comment #4 on issue 1881 by casevh: solve - OverflowError: mpz too large
for int
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1881
(I am one of the maintainers of gmpy.)
What version of gmpy are you using? I think that error message will only
appear in
versions of gmpy prior to 1.03. In
Hey Everyone,
It took me a while to put the finishing touches on my application, but
here is the Google document for my GSoc Application:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfdvw9c_1gx87s2gb. It's due at 19:00
UTC, but any constructive criticism you have between now and then
would be helpful.
On Apr
Addison Cugini wrote:
Hey Everyone,
It took me a while to put the finishing touches on my application, but
here is the Google document for my GSoc Application:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfdvw9c_1gx87s2gb. It's due at 19:00
UTC, but any constructive criticism you have between now and then
Well, you are most certainty welcome!
Nonetheless, I can hardly imagine that I have done more for this community than
this community has done for me.
50% is not at all too high, especially if you are new. This is because
community bonding like this is the best (maybe the only) way to learn
Thank's for the input! Other input still appreciated!
Matt
On Apr 8, 4:21 pm, Aaron S. Meurer asmeu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi.
I am assuming you are one of Brian Granger's students that he mentioned here.
I think the proposal looks good. I don't know anything about Quantum
Mechanics, so I
Hi Matt!
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Matt Curry mattjcu...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank's for the input! Other input still appreciated!
I think your proposal looks very solid. We have last 3 hours to the
deadline, so I only have this suggestion:
Put there some example section, where you would
Hi everyone,
I am starting to use both the new polynomials and the new assumptions, and
both are coming along great. They are (almost) allowing me to do a paper
that isn't possible with 0.6.7. The almost is because while the
calculations seem to work, I am running into hardware limitations.
Let
Hi Addison!
I think your proposal looks good! Please send it to both PSU and PSF now.
After you send it and if you have time, I only have the same comment
as to Matt, e.g. adding there some examples:
Examples
a = Gate(..., ...)
a
gate print
b = define some calculation
b.solve()
[some
My advice for Matt also applies:
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy/browse_thread/thread/546c084788142c8f
Aaron Meurer
On Apr 9, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
Hi Addison!
I think your proposal looks good! Please send it to both PSU and PSF now.
After you send it and if you
Thanks Alan,
I'll see if I can find a copy of the textbook at the school library.
--Addison--
On Apr 9, 8:36 am, Alan Bromborsky abro...@verizon.net wrote:
Addison Cugini wrote:
Hey Everyone,
It took me a while to put the finishing touches on my application, but
here is the Google
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Benjamin Goodrich
goodrich@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am starting to use both the new polynomials and the new assumptions, and
both are coming along great. They are (almost) allowing me to do a paper
that isn't possible with 0.6.7. The almost is
I just updated the link with my final proposal. Thanks for all your
help!
Matt
On Apr 8, 3:05 pm, Matt Curry mattjcu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm currently a Physics major at Cal Poly. I'm interested in adding
quantum mechanics to SymPy through Google Summer of Code. I've
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
Let me know if it helps. Another idea is that this line:
first * second - third**2
probably isn't using polynomial arithmetics, but regular sympy
arithmetics, which will be slow and eat lots of memory. Is there a way
On Apr 9, 3:09 pm, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
And if this helps, we can then try to think how to make this
automatic, so that you can just write:
first * second - third**2
and it will be the same fast.
Ondrej
Okay, I had already assumed that if first * second - third**2 was
I think this is related to the geometric algebra module in sympy, it
also defines some inner and outer products, if I recall it correctly.
Vinzent
On Apr 9, 9:08 pm, Matt Curry mattjcu...@gmail.com wrote:
I just updated the link with my final proposal. Thanks for all your
help!
Matt
On Apr
On Apr 8, 9:33 pm, Mateusz Paprocki matt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 07:47:57AM -0600, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
Maybe we should add an option to solve() to return an Eq().
better, we should unify resulting data structures from all kinds of
solvers and then think of
Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
I think this is related to the geometric algebra module in sympy, it
also defines some inner and outer products, if I recall it correctly.
Vinzent
On Apr 9, 9:08 pm, Matt Curry mattjcu...@gmail.com wrote:
I just updated the link with my final proposal. Thanks for
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Ben Goodrich goodrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 9, 3:09 pm, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
And if this helps, we can then try to think how to make this
automatic, so that you can just write:
first * second - third**2
and it will be the same fast.
On Apr 9, 7:05 pm, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Ben Goodrich goodrich@gmail.com wrote:
So far, that is only using a small amount of RAM, but it is still
calculating. I will report back when it finishes or errors.
Yep, report back.
Ondrej
Okay,
Thanks - I'll keep this in mind should my project proposal get
accepted.
- Kazuo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy group.
To post to this group, send email to sy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
32 matches
Mail list logo
