On Saturday, April 6, 2013 12:07:42 PM UTC+5:30, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> I don't know much of the physics, so I can't give you many
> suggestions, but one thing that you should do is look to see if any
> symbolic systems like the one you are proposing already exist (either
> closed source or op
Hi guys,
I'm a second year undergrad at Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
India. I went through the ideas page for sympy and found "*Ordinary
Differential Equation*" quite interesting.
I'm interested in *"Solving Differential Equations in terms of Bessel
Functions*" and "*a method to find
You can start here to get a feel for using git and understanding sympy code
base:
https://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/list?q=label:EasyToFix
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Abhishek Tyagi
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm a second year undergrad at Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
> India. I w
Thanks for your response. Can anyone give me more details about above
mentioned projects.
Regards,
Abhishek Tyagi
IIT Roorkee
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 5:30:13 PM UTC+5:30, Rishabh Dixit wrote:
>
> You can start here to get a feel for using git and understanding sympy
> code base:
> https://c
Hi Mr. Aaron,
I would like to discuss about the project *"Risch Algorithm for Symbolic
Integration"*. Could you please tell me about your work that you did in
GSOC 2010.
I would really appreciate if you could post your code somewhere and forward
me its link.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Abhishe
I think that a symbolic SPICE engine would be sufficient for a GSOC
project. I have some questions about it's feasibility.
What are some advantages of solving this problem symbolically rather than
numerically? A user loses a factor of a thousand in performance. What do
they gain? What manipula
By the way, I think that someone should implement a "rigorous mode" to
calculate an integral. Let me explain.
If you type integrate(x**n, x) you'll get x**(n + 1)/(n + 1)
I think that a good integration algorithm should be able to handle
particular cases like n = -1, what about an answer suc
On my system if I blacklist the examples that use pdflatex the sympy-bot
tests are passed. If I don't blacklist the examples that use pdflatex
the sympy-bot tests fail (there are no docstring tests in the examples),
but no errors are shown in the test report. Is there a switch for
sympy-bot f
Could you run only the doctests - you have to set the testcommand in your
bot config file to bin/doctest -v
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 3:41:46 PM UTC+2, brombo wrote:
>
> On my system if I blacklist the examples that use pdflatex the sympy-bot
> tests are passed. If I don't blacklist the exam
BTW, remove the print statements from test_test.py as they produce an
irritating test output:
sympy/ga/tests/test_test.py[10] ..f
.f
... [OK]
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 4:23:08 PM UTC+2, thomas hisch wrote:
>
> Could you run only the doctests - you have to
On 04/06/2013 10:23 AM, thomas hisch wrote:
Could you run only the doctests - you have to set the testcommand in
your bot config file to bin/doctest -v
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 3:41:46 PM UTC+2, brombo wrote:
On my system if I blacklist the examples that use pdflatex the
sympy-bot
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
> I did what you suggested (also removed prints from my tests) and sympy-bot
> fails, but there are no errors in test report.
Thats strange. Note that the finished line is missing from the output:
=== tests finished:
On 04/06/2013 11:11 AM, Thomas Hisch wrote:
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
I did what you suggested (also removed prints from my tests) and sympy-bot
fails, but there are no errors in test report.
Thats strange. Note that the finished line is missing from the output:
=
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 5:13:38 PM UTC+2, brombo wrote:
>
> On 04/06/2013 11:11 AM, Thomas Hisch wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Alan Bromborsky
> > >
> wrote:
> >> I did what you suggested (also removed prints from my tests) and
> sympy-bot
> >> fails, but there are no errors
On 04/06/2013 11:21 AM, thomas hisch wrote:
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 5:13:38 PM UTC+2, brombo wrote:
On 04/06/2013 11:11 AM, Thomas Hisch wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Alan Bromborsky
> wrote:
>> I did what you suggested (also removed prints from my tests)
and
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
> On 04/06/2013 11:21 AM, thomas hisch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, April 6, 2013 5:13:38 PM UTC+2, brombo wrote:
>>
>> On 04/06/2013 11:11 AM, Thomas Hisch wrote:
>> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Alan Bromborsky
>> > wrote:
>> >> I did wh
On 04/06/2013 12:26 PM, Thomas Hisch wrote:
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
On 04/06/2013 11:21 AM, thomas hisch wrote:
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 5:13:38 PM UTC+2, brombo wrote:
On 04/06/2013 11:11 AM, Thomas Hisch wrote:
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Alan Brombor
Alright, I think most of the ideas are clear at this point. With that, I'll
start writing the proposal and hopefully post it by Monday. Then, we can
continue refinements based on suggestions from the community. And again,
I'd like to say a big thanks to everyone who has helped me out here. Thank
Let's continue this discussion on IRC please
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
> On 04/06/2013 12:26 PM, Thomas Hisch wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Alan Bromborsky
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/06/2013 11:21 AM, thomas hisch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, April
On 04/06/2013 12:42 PM, Thomas Hisch wrote:
Let's continue this discussion on IRC please
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
On 04/06/2013 12:26 PM, Thomas Hisch wrote:
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Alan Bromborsky
wrote:
On 04/06/2013 11:21 AM, thomas hisch wrote:
O
There is already work to do this at https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1622
.
Aaron Meurer
On Saturday, April 6, 2013, F. B. wrote:
> By the way, I think that someone should implement a "rigorous mode" to
> calculate an integral. Let me explain.
>
> If you type integrate(x**n, x) you'll get
Hello Aaron,
Thank you for your reply! Could you let me know the Bronstein book you are
referring to, for understanding the Risch algorithm?
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:53 PM, F. B. wrote:
> By the way, I think that someone should implement a "rigorous mode" to
> calculate an integral. Let me exp
Hello Everyone
I wanted to know that whether implementation of Digital Signal Processing
operations such as Fourier transform, z-transform, etc can be an useful
project for GSoC 2013 ?
Thank You.
Abinash Panda
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sym
Dear Vipul,
Are you sure you did the following:
Once you enter the sympy folder do the following:
This will install the library
sudo python setup.py install
Run the following. It will essentially run all the tests and finally output
you if all test cases passed the result or not.
./setup.py t
Dear All,
I am Sushant a sophomore from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
pursuing Computer Science.
I am very much interested in number theory and my trysts with number theory
goes way back since I was in school. I have participated in Maths Olympiads
and number theory has always been my
Hi,
As far as my knowledge and understanding goes implementation of Fourier
transforms and other integral transforms already exists in sympy.I hope you
were asking about the machinery for signal processing and not signal
processing in general.Cheers.
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Abinash Pan
Hi Matthew,
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 6:08:01 PM UTC+5:30, Matthew wrote:
>
> I think that a symbolic SPICE engine would be sufficient for a GSOC
> project. I have some questions about it's feasibility.
>
> What are some advantages of solving this problem symbolically rather than
> numerically
Symbolic Integration I: Transcendental Functions
Aaron Meurer
On Apr 6, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Sandeep Dasika wrote:
Hello Aaron,
Thank you for your reply! Could you let me know the Bronstein book you are
referring to, for understanding the Risch algorithm?
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:53 PM, F. B.
I think you should think of the scale and algebraic complexity of problem
you'd like to support and then create some sparse matrix system that
somewhat resembles that problem. See if it can do the things you need it
to do. My guess is that large sparse symbolic solve is difficult. I don't
have m
Hi Matthew,
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 11:47:50 PM UTC+5:30, Matthew wrote:
>
> I think you should think of the scale and algebraic complexity of problem
> you'd like to support and then create some sparse matrix system that
> somewhat resembles that problem. See if it can do the things you nee
Got it. Thank you!
(Apologies for asking the title here, as it is mentioned in the Ideas wiki
for GSoC 2012)
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Aaron Meurer wrote:
> Symbolic Integration I: Transcendental Functions
>
> Aaron Meurer
>
> On Apr 6, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Sandeep Dasika
> wrote:
>
> H
Hopefully any performance problems you will encounter will be solved
by Mateusz as he moves the matrices to use ground types. Search this
mailing list for recent threads with him, and take a look at
sympy/polys/benchmarks/bench_solvers.py.
What kind of entries do you anticipate the typical matric
On Sunday, April 7, 2013 12:53:00 AM UTC+5:30, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> Hopefully any performance problems you will encounter will be solved
> by Mateusz as he moves the matrices to use ground types. Search this
> mailing list for recent threads with him, and take a look at
> sympy/polys/bench
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Sushant Hiray wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I am Sushant a sophomore from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
> pursuing Computer Science.
> I am very much interested in number theory and my trysts with number
> theory goes way back since I was in school. I have partic
If I enter
ex1=sympify("(x,y)")
then ex1 is a standard python tuple of sympy Symbols, which it gets from
parse_expr
However, if I apply sympify a second time to those results
ex2=sympify(sympify("(x,y)"))
then ex2 is a sympy Tuple, and I can do things like
ex2.subs(Symbol('x'),3)
It's easy enough
Take a look at the other thread on this list about the Risch algorithm.
And my code is all in the sympy git repository, under sympy/integrals/
Aaron Meurer
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Abhishek Tyagi
wrote:
> Hi Mr. Aaron,
> I would like to discuss about the project "Risch Algorithm for Symb
This is a bug I guess. No one ever implemented tuple -> Tuple in parse_expr.
Aaron Meurer
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Duane Nykamp wrote:
> If I enter
> ex1=sympify("(x,y)")
> then ex1 is a standard python tuple of sympy Symbols, which it gets from
> parse_expr
> However, if I apply sympify
OK, so this is something that will probably be slow now for large
systems. You'll also currently need to be careful about zero
equivalence. As the matrices move to ground types, though, this
problem will go away.
Aaron Meurer
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Ankit Agrawal wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday,
I already gave my arguments why I don't think it's a good idea on the
issue page. Calling doit or series again is not that hard, and you
gain the ability to write such things, and also you don't get a
performance hit on automatic evaluation.
Aaron Meurer
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Sergey Ki
I also think it should do it. You can think of the point of powsimp
as being to try to make the expression as close to a single Pow as
possible.
Aaron Meurer
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Manoj Kumar
wrote:
> I'm not really sure, but according to the documentation, It should combine
> powers
Well, you should obviously know linear algebra, and what all the basic
matrix operations mean. The thing to do for this project is to rewrite
the matrices to be more like the polys, where the elements are not
just sympy expressions but rather elements of some ground type. This
way, we can do things
Did you solve this? Looking back at the book I used when I took PDEs
(Zauderer) I think you are talking about the method of
characteristics. It looks like the solution should be
dx/ds = a, dx/ds = b, dF/ds = c (note that the right-hand side can
actually be c*F + d, in which case the third equation
I don't see it either. Does this happen if you run the bot again? If
not, there was probably just some issue with the bot itself, or the
computer it was running on (was this your run or someone else's?). We
unfortunately don't include stderr in the report
(https://github.com/sympy/sympy-bot/issues/
According to the comment, the issue is from decorated functions. If
all the decorators use @wraps, does this problem not happen?
Aaron Meurer
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Thomas Hisch wrote:
> For the following functions/modules the regex in
>
> if not in_module:
> #
There's no direct functions for them, but I think you can just plug in
the formulas and get an answer for a specific curve.
Aaron Meurer
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Vimos Tan wrote:
> Does sympy support the calculation of curvature and torsion for
> parametrized curves or surfaces?
>
> --
>
On Sunday, April 7, 2013 4:50:46 AM UTC+5:30, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> OK, so this is something that will probably be slow now for large
> systems.
The size of the system that I expect the user to be able to solve would
have A matrix of the size of 12 x 12 (slightly on the higher side).
You
It's implemented in PR 1925
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.
I saw that sympy has implemented Miller-Rabin strong pseudo-prime test for
primality checking!
> Miller-Rabin returns False if n is definitely composite, True if n is
> probably prime, with a probability greater than 3/4 , as mentioned in the
> comments.
> Well so we can surely do better than this
I have checked again if this code is still required (with my changes
in PR 1969) and it turns out it is never executed. Therefore, I
removed this code from the SymPyDocTestFinder.
Regards
Thomas
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Aaron Meurer wrote:
> According to the comment, the issue is from dec
Hi,
Although there are many integral transforms available in sympy such as
fourier transforms, laplace transform, but there is no such tool available
for digital signal processing such z-transform, Discrete Time Fourier
Transform, DFT, etc..
I wanted to know that whether these implementations would
Can you be more specific about what would be implemented?
Aaron Meurer
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Abinash Panda
wrote:
> Hi,
> Although there are many integral transforms available in sympy such as
> fourier transforms, laplace transform, but there is no such tool available
> for digital si
The correctness of matrix algorithms, particularly the rref algorithm
and those that rely on it, rely on the ability to determine if entries
are identically zero or not. For symbolic matrices, this means that
if you end up with an entry like 1/(1/x - 1/(x + 1)) - x**2 - x, and
it works under the a
You can also just pass -t "bin/doctest -v" when you run sympy-bot.
Aaron Meurer
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 8:23 AM, thomas hisch wrote:
> Could you run only the doctests - you have to set the testcommand in your
> bot config file to bin/doctest -v
>
> On Saturday, April 6, 2013 3:41:46 PM UTC+2, br
Did you really mean to run sympy.doctest("ga")? If that returns True,
then sympy-bot should report it as passing (and visa-versa if it
returns False).
Aaron Meurer
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
> On 04/06/2013 12:26 PM, Thomas Hisch wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at
Hi Abinash,
The reason I feel there are only continuous transforms in sympy is that
for digital signal processing and its transforms(DFT, DTFT, z-transform),
your data being discrete, would have to be stored in numeric arrays and not
continuous functions that can be symbolically represented
55 matches
Mail list logo
