Comment #31 on issue 884 by smi...@gmail.com: One line matrix and one
column matrix confusion
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=884
see also issue 930
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy-issues group.
To post to this group, send
Comment #5 on issue 2544 by smi...@gmail.com: Matrix(...)[i] for non-vector
matrices should not be supported.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2544
M.row(i) and M.col(i) now give the ith row and column, respectively. The
slice syntax is consistent with treating M like a
Updates:
Labels: NeedsReview smichr
Comment #2 on issue 2658 by smi...@gmail.com: Abi disable checking in
solve()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2658
This is hangs when cancel is applied to the expression. if minimal=False
then only the simplest of checking is
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #1 on issue 2655 by smi...@gmail.com: M.row(0) - 0 row of matrix
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2655
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy-issues
Comment #3 on issue 2656 by smi...@gmail.com: Solve exp(x*log(x) - 1, x)
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2656
Try nsolve if you are looking for a numerical solution and give it an
initial guess:
sigma = 4
mu=Rational(3,2)
nsolve(x * ((1.0 / sqrt(2 * pi) * x *
Comment #31 on issue 884 by smi...@gmail.com: One line matrix and one
column matrix confusion
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=884
see also issue 930
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy-patches group.
To post to this group, send
Updates:
Labels: NeedsReview smichr
Comment #2 on issue 2658 by smi...@gmail.com: Abi disable checking in
solve()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2658
This is hangs when cancel is applied to the expression. if minimal=False
then only the simplest of checking is
I posted something to an issue which doesn't automatically ping to
everyone so am copying the discussion here.
Currently, there is an inconsistency between sympy and numpy since
Matrix([1,2,3]) gives a column vector while the same argument in numpy
gives a row vector.
I believe that sympy
I am interested in learning how to use the modules pertaining to quantum
mechanics in sympy. However, the documentation is very poor. I have to read
blogs of GSoC applicants, which by themselves are not a complete resource
and sometimes just go to github and read through the code and the
What am I doing wrong?
$ make
python build.py build_ext --inplace
Compiling module sympy.polys.densearith ...
Compiling module sympy.polys.densebasic ...
Error converting Pyrex file to C:
...
if not u:
return tuple(f)
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 02:26, smichr smi...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted something to an issue which doesn't automatically ping to
everyone so am copying the discussion here.
Currently, there is an inconsistency between sympy and numpy since
Matrix([1,2,3]) gives a column vector while the same
It works for me, using Python 2.6 and Cython 0.15 and the git master
for SymPy. Perhaps you need to update Cython.
Aaron Meurer
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Julien Rioux julien.ri...@gmail.com wrote:
What am I doing wrong?
$ make
python build.py build_ext --inplace
Compiling module
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 02:26, smichr smi...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted something to an issue which doesn't automatically ping to
everyone so am copying the discussion here.
Currently, there is an inconsistency between
I think for consistency's sake, we should make this return a row matrix.
Matrix([1,2,3]).T would be the corresponding column matrix.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 02:26, smichr smi...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted something to
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:25, Aaron Meurer asmeu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 02:26, smichr smi...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted something to an issue which doesn't automatically ping to
everyone so am
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Saptarshi Mandal
sapta.iit...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just read the code and put into words what you have
understood? The community can then review your documentation and
provide suggestions/corrections wherever appropriate.
That would be great. Any help with
Sorry if the speed of that seemed rude. I just happened to be checking
my email when that ticket came in. :-)
Thanks for letting me know why a reply was in my box almost the second
after I pressed the return key :-) I did search the tickets and didn't
find a similar issue but I figured you
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Sherjil Ozair sherjiloz...@gmail.com wrote:
I think for consistency's sake, we should make this return a row matrix.
Matrix([1,2,3]).T would be the corresponding column matrix.
I've got a proposal nearly ready:
--we let Matrix([1,2,3]) give a row vector so it's
I see. So the main reason for the numpy syntax is consistency with
broadcasting, which doesn't really make sense in SymPy (or at least
not at the moment). Actually, I originally thought we should try to
match the numpy syntaxes, but as I look at them, I'm not sure. For
example, I said we should
We also should consider backwards compatibility breaks of our own.
Changing Matrix([1, 2, 3]) to a row vector will break a lot of code.
It broke at 0.7.0 in not allowing Matrix(1,2,3) anymore. I think I
have a pretty easy fix to ease the pain of backward compatibility as
described in the pull
Hi,
On 29 August 2011 19:19, Aaron Meurer asmeu...@gmail.com wrote:
It works for me, using Python 2.6 and Cython 0.15 and the git master
for SymPy. Perhaps you need to update Cython.
Yes. Older Cython didn't have support for generators.
Aaron Meurer
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:06 AM,
Thanks for suggesting this approach Aaron.
I did a test for larger expressions. I was printing out the same
matrix as before as the base expression to print. It seems like using
@cacheit consistently takes ~2.7 times longer than 'order':'none', but
both are much, much faster than the current
22 matches
Mail list logo
