Comment #1 on issue 3879 by julien.r...@gmail.com: Ellipse uses pyglet
plotting
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3879
Might want to fix the precatuion typo as well.
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this
Comment #3 on issue 3877 by smi...@gmail.com: subs should recognize powers
with exponent 1
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3877
That might not work if Pow._eval_subs is expecting self to have base and
exp attributes.
--
You received this message because this project is
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 3882 by trel...@psu.edu: divisors() is not type-consistent
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3882
Ran into a bug today with divisors()
The issue is that divisors() is not consistent in the type of the factors
Comment #1 on issue 3882 by asmeu...@gmail.com: divisors() is not
type-consistent
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3882
Issue 1973 would have made the set thing work.
I would just make the output always be Integer. It is a SymPy function
after all.
--
You received this
Status: Valid
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Simplify
New issue 3883 by asmeu...@gmail.com: powdenest should not do too much
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3883
Maybe there's a good reason for it, but why does powdenest also call
powsimp?
In [28]:
Status: Valid
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 3884 by smi...@gmail.com: Polygon should raise an error if sides
cross
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3884
When Polygon gets crossing sides, it silently gives something else
Comment #4 on issue 3877 by asmeu...@gmail.com: subs should recognize
powers with exponent 1
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3877
Or if the logic is not too complicated we could just reimplement it in
Symbol for the special case of exp = 1.
--
You received this message
about immutability and reference frame: I guess I do not understand
the details of what you describe. Anyway, I will not be against
immutability if it does not mess up with `__eq__` and `__hash__` so it
depends on the implementation.
about Vector: if it is not a subclass of Expr it will not be
Can we define our own simplify method for Vector that simplify(Vector) will
call?
Also, if Vector will is a subclass of Expr, how can we avoid something like
unit_vector * unit vector or Scalar+Vector?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Stefan Krastanov
krastanov.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
about
For an example of successive rotations, check out the second code block
here: http://docs.sympy.org/0.7.2/modules/physics/mechanics/examples.html
Regarding Vector, should the user being to perform any action they could on
another Expr object on a Vector object? If it inherits from Expr, would
You can define and _eval_simplify method:
That is cool. But many such methods will have to be defined and most
of the time it will be just copy pasting from Expr with maybe minor
changes. Fixed done to the core or changes of api will have to be
redone for Vector. And many sympy methods simply
Maybe we could subclass from Basic, maybe even Expr.
We should just ensure *wrong* operations on Vectors return an error. (One
of which Gilbert mentioned)
Stefan, could you put up your idea of the API for the stress test on the
wiki? That would give us (Prasoon and me) a direction.
On Tue, Jun
I will do it in the evening. And obviously my suggestions can be
flawed, but I will try to explain why I prefer it in places where it
differs from what you suggest.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
Let us get some things clear here. Vector is going to be subclassed from
Basic. Also, after seeing the discussions/problems above, Vector + Vector
will give an Add on which we can call something akin to a .doit() to result
in a Vector. I do not see any problems with this approach.
Next,
@Prasoon, Vector + Vector is fine. What about vector * vector or scalar +
vector or any other such nonsense operation? If you are going to subclass
from Basic, this can be done with handling of the operators as I have
already pointed out. But how we will do this without operator overloading
in
I'm only skimming over this thread but I noticed that the Basic/Expr
question came up.
MatrixExpressions used to inherit from Expr for exactly the reasons Stefan
said (lots of things work out of the box). This was great for startup but
eventually became a major pain. At some point I rewrote
This is also one of the ways to go forward. I personally dislike it because:
- A non trivial amount of functionality needs reimplementation
(flatten for instance)
- We do not have standard correct way to interface with functions
like factor, symplify, had, get, atoms, etc, so it is hard to be
A non trivial amount of functionality needs reimplementation (flatten for
instance)
True, however I think you'll find that flatten does things that you don't
want. Much of the Expr code makes scalar assumptions that might not apply.
I tried to generalize some of my work in matrix expressions
What does it mean to factor vectors exactly?
I was thinking about a*unit_vector + b*unit_vector - (a+b)*unit_vector
But as you said there are many others that do not make sense for vectors.
In contrast the other way has proven to work in physics.quantum. They're
both reasonable.
And also
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Stefan Krastanov
krastanov.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
What does it mean to factor vectors exactly?
I was thinking about a*unit_vector + b*unit_vector - (a+b)*unit_vector
My solution was the generic version in sympy/strategies/rl.py. This
particular operation
I was working out the second heuristic of the Maple paper along with Sean,
and the PR can be found here -- https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/2156
Firstly, the thing is I need to extract factors (according to the Maple
Paper)
a} that are algebraic
b} and are either a function of
What do you mean by algebraic? There is is_polynomial or is_rational_function.
Aaron Meurer
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Manoj Kumar
manojkumarsivaraj...@gmail.com wrote:
I was working out the second heuristic of the Maple paper along with Sean,
and the PR can be found here --
Prasoon,
That option does not work for ReferenceFrame. If I have a ReferenceFrame A,
and another ReferenceFrame B, and want to set the angular velocity of B in
A as
w_1*b_1 + w_2_* b_2 + w_3 * b_3
I need access to the basis vectors of B, which I won't have until after the
frame is initialized.
I am catching up here, so just some random comments on things that
were mentioned:
- Regarding the quantum module, they actually went the opposite route
from MatrixExprs. Originally, they used their own QAdd, QMul, etc.,
but then later it was changed to use the core Add, Mul, etc. I don't
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Aaron Meurer asmeu...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you mean by algebraic? There is is_polynomial or
is_rational_function.
I was referring to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_expression,
is_Polynomial wouldn't work if I want to identify cases like
is_rational_function could easily be extended to handle such cases
(one just needs to allow rational instead of integer exponents).
Aaron Meurer
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Manoj Kumar
manojkumarsivaraj...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Aaron Meurer
Hi,
As some of you know, I am working on matrix module nowadays. I have
written about my progress in previous week in [1]. Unfortunately, I
cannot get in on sympy planet because my current PR is from my master
branch. After that PR is merged, I'll send a PR for my blog feed. FWIW
I have posted it
27 matches
Mail list logo
