Tarun's making good progress on the pydy viz package. The python code is
basically done and he's working on the js stuff now.
https://github.com/PythonDynamics/pydy-viz
Couple of questions for the group:
1. Where should this package belong?
Options are:
in sympy.physics.mechanics
in a standalo
On what subset of SymPy does PyDy and sympy.mechanics rely? How stable is
this subset?
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Jason Moore wrote:
> Tarun's making good progress on the pydy viz package. The python code is
> basically done and he's working on the js stuff now.
>
> https://github.com/Py
Once GSoC ends it will rely on a brand new vector calculus package that
Prasoon is working on, so not so stable.
But right now, it relys on SymPy pieces like Symbol, taking derivatives,
Matrices, substitutions and replacements. Gilber could comment more fully
as he knows the code base best.
Jaso
Em 13-08-2013 01:32, Aaron Meurer escreveu:
As Maemo 4 & 5 are limited to Python 2.5 and SymPy 0.7.3 is
the last version for Python 2.5, this is the last version of SymPy
for Maemo 4 (which dates from 2007). Maemo 5 has a community
release of Python 2.7, so maybe new SymPy ve
I think a new PyDy distribution may be the way to go too, not sure about
the timing yet. We can still interact with SymPy and contribute just as
much as the past but we do throw away this feature of being part of SymPy:
Any changes made to SymPy must pass our tests.
This has been very valuable so
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jason Moore wrote:
> I think a new PyDy distribution may be the way to go too, not sure about
> the timing yet. We can still interact with SymPy and contribute just as
> much as the past but we do throw away this feature of being part of SymPy:
>
> Any changes ma
Yes, for now we could just package SymPy with PyDy as a git submodule. Then
change the namespace so you
from pydy import ReferenceFrame, etc
and
from pydy.visualization import VisualizationFrame
We'd still have:
from sympy import symbols
But at least it would be one package.
Jason
moorepant
It's not too hard to make Travis test against the git version of
SymPy, so that you will know right away when the tests break. We could
also add PyDy tests to our own Travis tests.
The question I would ask is, how active do you expect the development
to be, especially after this summer?
Aaron Meu
I don't there is any way to know how active the development will be. We
presented it at two conferences for the first time in the last couple of
months and have some people showing interest because of that. But for now
it is just the core devs side project and we use it in our research.
Jason
moo
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
> Attached is the output of the simulation of a Foucault pendulum. The
> question pertains to the output in red. I have and expression for
> \omega_{+} and \omega_{-} and I wish to do a symbolic Taylor expansion for
> \omega_{+}-\omega_{-} i
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
>> Attached is the output of the simulation of a Foucault pendulum. The
>> question pertains to the output in red. I have and expression for
>> \omega_{+} and \omega_{-} and I wish to
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jason Moore wrote:
> I don't there is any way to know how active the development will be. We
> presented it at two conferences for the first time in the last couple of
> months and have some people showing interest because of that. But for now it
> is just the cor
It's worth pointing out that the key to it being active is not so much
whether or not you yourself plan to work on it, but rather how much of
a community you are able to build around it. If you really encourage
contributions from the people who have shown interest, then I think it
will be successfu
>
> Also, try the ".series()" command. It might work, as it is expanding
> the expression inside out,
> to avoid such problems.
>
>
Also, if you can put the equations in the form: dx/dt = f(x), and you have
f(x) as a Sympy Matrix of expressions, you can simply do df =
f.jacobian(x), then evaluate (
On 08/13/2013 08:50 PM, Dale Lukas Peterson wrote:
Also, try the ".series()" command. It might work, as it is expanding
the expression inside out,
to avoid such problems.
Also, if you can put the equations in the form: dx/dt = f(x), and you
have f(x) as a Sympy Matrix of expressi
Okay, I opened an issue for this.
https://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3976
--
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.
>
>
>
> series did not work. limits did for evaluating the derivatives. First
> derivatives were quick. Second derivatives took a long time (15min).
> --
>
>
I'm curious, why do you need second derivatives?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy"
17 matches
Mail list logo
