Re: [sympy] Re: Vector Debate

> > I don't think there is a debate. > I finally understand why you need to keep vectors open to multiple coordinate systems. If you did not then operations like *mag(r - r')* would not be possible. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group.

Re: [sympy] Re: Vector Debate

Jason, I see now. You want to keep it open for people who know how to define vectors in multiple coordinate systems. I do feel that it should be expressed in the documentation (might already be, not at comp). Justin Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 24, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Jason Moore wr

Re: [sympy] Re: Vector Debate

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 7:27:45 PM UTC-4, Nathan Goldbaum wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Justin > > wrote: > >> I have a terrible way of wording things.. more of a discussion between >> myself and the author where he mentioned that I

Re: [sympy] Re: Vector Debate

which I gather > from the definition you don't have a priori)? > > Aaron Meurer > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Justin > > wrote: > > -1 > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Grou

Re: [sympy] Re: Vector Debate

I have a terrible way of wording things.. more of a discussion between myself and the author where he mentioned that I should ask the community what they think. On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 6:43:51 PM UTC-4, Jason Moore wrote: > > Justin, > > I don't think there is a debat

[sympy] Re: Vector Debate

-1 -- 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.com. Visit this group at

[sympy] Vector Debate

i + C2.y * C2.j (-1) In [3]: vector = C1.x * C1.i + C2.y * C2.j TypeError: The vector should be well-defined. Please vote with +1 or -1 below. The current representation is +1. Thanks, Justin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy&qu

Re: [sympy] Vectors Module Contribution

> > On Wednesday, 21 October 2015 17:37:31 UTC+2, Jason Moore wrote: >> >> I will help you get your dev environment setup and give info on how to >> make PRs, etc. >> >> Hey Jason, I have my dev environment set up per the development workflow wiki. I would like some information on how and when

Re: [sympy] Vectors Module Contribution

out this right now, but will keep it in mind when mapping out the class hierarchy. Any thoughts on implementing the divergence theorem in special cases like these, or plans for the dirac delta? Cheers, Justin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "

Re: [sympy] Vectors Module Contribution

ave them there at all. > Out of curiosity, which Python function does this? Adding a whole new operator is interesting.. and, of course, debatable. Cheers, Justin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group

Re: [sympy] Vectors Module Contribution

Hi, > Something I'd really like to see changed in the vector module, is the > dependence of these operators on the coordinate system. That is, you define > the *grad, curl, div* operators for every coordinate system. This is not > necessary, because *base_scalar*s and *base_vector*s all conta

Re: [sympy] Vectors Module Contribution

spherical stuff because, as of now, the base scalars and base vectors append spherical_ on the normal ones (x, y, z, i, j, k). I'll keep in touch. Cheers, Justin Blythe jblyth...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group.

[sympy] Vectors Module Contribution

reference frames and what-have-you. Cheers, Justin -- 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,

Re: [sympy] Assumptions in solve()

in some of the functions in sympy/solvers on how to do that right out of the box to hit the ground running with complicated dsolve()s. That is when people come to these kind of programs, that or undergrads in calc 1. Regards, Justin -- You received this message because you are subscribe

[sympy] Assumptions in solve()

Hey, So I am going through the advanced example in the tutorial: Solve for r given V=4/3 * pi * r**3. The solution is correct but I am wondering if I can get rid of unneeded solutions by giving a "list" of assumption like [ V>0, r>0 ]. Justin -- You received this message

Re: [sympy] Re: Contributing

umber of not so simple coupled ODEs with different solve techniques to stress the solver. I am on the job market right now so it might be the weekend before I make the commit. We can continue from there. I hope this helps. Cheers, Justin jblyth...@gmail.com Hi, > > Some systems

[sympy] Re: Contributing

How about coupled ODEs? On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 12:26:30 AM UTC-4, Denis Akhiyarov wrote: > > There is limited analytical PDE solver, but this is not very practical. If > numerical PDE solution, that area is pretty well established, even in > python. -- You received this message bec

[sympy] Contributing

project to get involved in and this one is right up my alley. I have not used your package yet so I'd be willing to start with some bug fixes to prove my worth. Have you guys implemented partial differential equations yet? If not, that will set this package on fire!! Cheers, Justin --

Re: [sympy] Moments of a normal distribution

A little notebook that came out of this work, is case anyone is interested: http://nbviewer.ipython.org/github/justinvf/algorithmshop/blob/master/20140715-mixture-models/pearson_gaussian_mixtures.ipynb On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:13:42 PM UTC-7, Justin Vincent wrote: > > Thanks! This

Re: [sympy] Moments of a normal distribution

gt; moment(X, 2) > 91/6 > >>> moment(X, 1) == E(X) > True > > In [6]: moment(X, 1) > Out[6]: μ > > In [7]: moment(X, 2) > Out[7]: > 2 2 > μ + σ > > In [8]: moment(X, 3) > Out[8]: > 32 > μ + 3⋅μ⋅σ > > In [9]: m

[sympy] Moments of a normal distribution

(f * x, (x, -oo, oo)) What approach should I take here if I wanted to get those values cited in wikipedia? Haven't used Sympy much before. Thanks in advance. Justin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from

Re: [sympy] Solving a quadratic symbolically (Sympy vs. Mathematica)

So, I switched to the 'sympy.nsolve' method and got the approximate solutions similar to Mathematica. Yes, the system is nonlinear. While the method in the Mathematica code was 'NSolve', the solution set returned was the same for the 'Solve' method. Regardless, this helped a bunch. Thanks! On S

Re: [sympy] Solving a quadratic symbolically (Sympy vs. Mathematica)

day, June 30, 2013 12:44:45 PM UTC-7, Stefan Krastanov wrote: > > f_1 = x + s1 + s2 + s5 - t1 > > this is all that you need to do if I understand your question correctly > > Or if you wish, you can create 'Eq(right_hand, left_hand)' instances. > > On 30 June 20

[sympy] Solving a quadratic symbolically (Sympy vs. Mathematica)

Hi all, I'm trying to make the switch from Mathematica to Python in the lab, but I'm running into a small problem binding the result space to a boundary. Specifically, I'm trying to assign equality to each polynomial equation in a system to a total t1,t2 and t3 to solve the system symbolically.