Issue 790: risch: PolynimialException when integrating not-so-trivial
exponents
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=790
This issue is now blocking issue 1127.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1127
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
Updates:
Blockedon: 790
Comment #7 on issue 1127 by asmeurer:
integrate(2*a/2*a)**2+x**2))**(3/2)),x) gives traceback
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1127
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Issue 790: risch: PolynimialException when integrating not-so-trivial
exponents
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=790
This issue is now blocking issue 1851.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1851
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
Updates:
Blockedon: 790
Comment #3 on issue 1851 by asmeurer: Integral((-60*exp(x) -
19.2*exp(4*x))*exp(4*x), x).doit() failure
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1851
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
Status: Accepted
Owner: asmeurer
CC: smichr
Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium Matching
New issue 2026 by asmeurer: Exact substitution
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2026
This has been discussed several times, but I don't think an issue has ever
been created for it.
Issue 1836: subs can see the 2 arg sum
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1836
This issue is now blocking issue 2026.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2026
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you
Issue 2026: Exact substitution
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2026
This issue is now blocking issue 2010.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2010
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred
Comment #40 on issue 1778 by smichr: Rational from string can be improved
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1778
Another issue that this branch addresses is the sympification of longs:
S('222/111')
2L
With the changes of this branch, the result is the Integer
Updates:
Status: Started
Owner: mattpap
Labels: Milestone-Release0.7.0 NeedsReview
Comment #2 on issue 1069 by mattpap: 'together' should not expand
denominators
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1069
On polys11 branch I fixed and improved together().
Updates:
Status: Started
Owner: mattpap
Labels: Milestone-Release0.7.0 NeedsReview
Comment #6 on issue 1900 by mattpap: factor((1+2*x+x**2)**100) works too
hard
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1900
This issue was recently fixed in polys11 branch:
In
Status: Accepted
Owner: smichr
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 2027 by smichr: Mul.flatten violates power rules
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2027
I thought I had all of these tracked down but just found another place
where power rules are being broken when the
Updates:
Summary: guessing what functions, like integrate, roots, factor, apart
(and many more), should do with the given expression
Status: Started
Labels: Milestone-Release0.7.0
Comment #6 on issue 527 by mattpap: guessing what functions, like
integrate, roots, factor,
Comment #7 on issue 2020 by chr.schu...@gmx.de: Symbols Matrices
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2020
I like the idea of adapting the Indexed class. Is there any description
available what Indexed should be used for? Is the interaction with Matrix
and Symbol a part of it?
Updates:
Labels: WrongResult
Comment #1 on issue 2027 by asmeurer: Mul.flatten violates power rules
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2027
Maple leaves both variants alone by default.
(-2)**x*(-3)**x;
x x
Comment #7 on issue 527 by asmeurer: guessing what functions, like
integrate, roots, factor, apart (and many more), should do with the given
expression
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=527
I don't like how integrate(x*y) automatically integrates with respect to
all the
Comment #2 on issue 2027 by smichr: Mul.flatten violates power rules
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2027
For them to come together? You can only bring in 1 negative if you don't
know the exponent is an integer. And for the ((-1)**x)**2, that is always
equal to (-1)**(2*x)
Status: Accepted
Owner: smichr
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 2028 by smichr: invalid combination of bases
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2028
This is like issue 2027 but I think the same code is not being
traversed...this particular invalid combining of bases
Comment #1 on issue 2028 by asmeurer: invalid combination of bases
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2028
Wait, how is it different?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy-issues group.
To post to this group, send email to
Comment #2 on issue 2028 by smichr: invalid combination of bases
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2028
Same problem, different source AFAICT.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy-issues group.
To post to this group, send email to
Comment #3 on issue 2028 by asmeurer: invalid combination of bases
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2028
So, you know that you can change the summary of an issue. No need to
create a new one.
By the way, how do you know that isn't coming from Mul.flatten()? It seems
to me
Updates:
Status: Duplicate
Mergedinto: 2027
Comment #4 on issue 2028 by asmeurer: invalid combination of bases
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2028
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Comment #3 on issue 2027 by asmeurer: Mul.flatten violates power rules
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2027
Issue 2028 has been merged into this issue.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy-issues group.
To post to this group, send
Updates:
Summary: Invalid combination of bases
Comment #4 on issue 2027 by asmeurer: Invalid combination of bases
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2027
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Comment #7 on issue 1900 by smichr: factor((1+2*x+x**2)**100) works too hard
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1900
That's good news. Thanks for the update. Looking forward to seeing the new
polys.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Comment #8 on issue 1900 by smichr: factor((1+2*x+x**2)**100) works too hard
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1900
btw I left a comment on
http://github.com/mattpap/sympy-polys/commit/e88c0d0. Do you read those
commit comments? I'm not sure where else to leave feedback for
Well, here's the problem with the spaceless option:
var('ab cd ef')
(ab, cd, ef)
var('ab cd')
(ab, cd)
var('ab')
(a, b)
So definitely symbols() should not do each_char by default.
On Aug 17, 2010, at 12:44 AM, smichr wrote:
Mateusz has made changes in polys11 to make symbols behave like
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:44:04PM -0700, smichr wrote:
Mateusz has made changes in polys11 to make symbols behave like var; I
have submitted a patch 1919 on Vinzent's suggestion in the same issue
to make var behave like symbols. Which way should it go?
var('abc') - injects abc or a, b,
ti., 17.08.2010 kl. 01.14 -0600, skrev Aaron S. Meurer:
Well, here's the problem with the spaceless option:
var('ab cd ef')
(ab, cd, ef)
var('ab cd')
(ab, cd)
var('ab')
(a, b)
This one has bitten me many times. It would be great to make it more
consistent.
Øyvind
So definitely
2010/8/17 Aaron S. Meurer asmeu...@gmail.com:
Well, here's the problem with the spaceless option:
var('ab cd ef')
(ab, cd, ef)
var('ab cd')
(ab, cd)
var('ab')
(a, b)
You could still do
var('ab ')
ab
I really don't care as long as it is clearly documented, maybe we
should add better
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Christian Muise
christian.mu...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that was pressed on me was the desire to have every commit run
clean. Regardless of what point in the commit history, all tests should
work, or at the very least the system should install (broken
On Aug 17, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Brian Granger wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Christian Muise
christian.mu...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that was pressed on me was the desire to have every commit run
clean. Regardless of what point in the commit history, all tests should
work, or at
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Vinzent Steinberg
vinzent.steinb...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/8/17 Brian Granger elliso...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Christian Muise
christian.mu...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that was pressed on me was the desire to have every commit run
If you do decide to do rebasing, you should fix up some of the commit messages.
DId [sic] nothing basically, Not much, and Nothing aren't very
descriptive. Otherwise, try to do better in the future. You will be cursing
yourself later when you go back to fix a bug and can't tell what a commit
I'd drop 2.4 any day. The biggest pain for me during the summer was the
doctest: +SKIP flag which requires 2.5. In the autowrap module I need
to +SKIP several doctests in case compilers and backends are not
installed.
Øyvind
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 17 Aug., 07:43, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
I am ok with dropping 2.4 too. I would keep 2.5 for now.
Is there actually anyone who wants to keep 2.4 compability?
I'm also +1 for dropping it. (Yay, conditional statements!)
Vinzent
--
You received this message because you are
Just to reiterate the point.
+10
-- Andy
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Vinzent Steinberg
vinzent.steinb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 17 Aug., 07:43, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
I am ok with dropping 2.4 too. I would keep 2.5 for now.
Is there actually anyone who wants to keep
Does anyone know what the time scale is for numpy/scipy transitioning to
Python 3? Also, one thing that bit us recently was that the recommended
exception syntax in 2.6 is not compatible with 2.5--otherwise, it has
functioned fairly well.
William
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Andy Ray
37 matches
Mail list logo
