Re: [sympy] Re: Gsoc Proposal review

I have made the document visible to viewers again, I would again like to request everyone to review the same. Regards Arnab Nandi On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 23:17, Shishir Kushwaha wrote: > I made the access restricted so no one could edit your proposal but people > won't be able to view the

[sympy] Re: Gsoc Proposal review

Just to clarify the above linked doc is the final draft for the proposal, I apologise to send repeated mails here as my mails took more than 48 hours to approve so I sent multiple ones. On Monday 1 April 2024 at 18:19:11 UTC+5:30 ARNAB NANDI wrote: > Hello everyone I am Arnab Nandi, I have

[sympy] Re: Gsoc Proposal review

I made the access restricted so no one could edit your proposal but people won't be able to view the proposal as well. I would suggest you change the access to view only. I am sorry if your intentions were different with the access you had given . On Monday 1 April 2024 at 22:46:30 UTC+5:30

[sympy] Re: Gsoc Proposal review

I was able to make the access restricted so I did that. I am sorry if you had meant to have open access for some reason. On Monday 1 April 2024 at 22:46:30 UTC+5:30 Shishir Kushwaha wrote: > Hey Arnab, the link is currently shared in editing mode, kindly change > that or someone might mess

[sympy] Re: Gsoc Proposal review

Hey Arnab, the link is currently shared in editing mode, kindly change that or someone might mess with your project accidentally. ___ Shishir On Monday 1 April 2024 at 18:19:11 UTC+5:30 arnabna...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello everyone I am Arnab Nandi, I have been contributing to sympy since

Re: [sympy] Re: GSOC Proposal

While submitting the GSOC Proposal it was mentioned to select whether the project is Large or medium size. Also it was mentioned to get approval for this thing with the organization first otherwise it may result in rejection of the proposal. (On the ideas page(in the probability section), it

Re: [sympy] Re: GSOC Proposal

Thanks a lot for your reply Sir Oscar Benjamin, you have always helped me in problems. It's okay if you will not be able to mentor the project. I was interested in adding these features after I saw them on the Ideas list and mailed sir Gagandeep regarding the same and everything seemed to be okay

Re: [sympy] Re: GSOC Proposal

Hi Kuldeep, I see that there is a proposal for working on probability in the ideas page: https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/GSoC-Ideas#probability It is suggested there that Gagandeep Singh or Smit Lunagariya are potential mentors. I have not seen much involvement from either of these

[sympy] Re: GSOC Proposal

Thanks Anutosh for telling me about this thing that patch must be code-related. Few days ago I created a PR which might help me to understand and complete one of the task included in GSOC in future if I am selected. https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/23346 I think this could satisfy the patch

[sympy] Re: GSOC Proposal

Hello Kuldeep, I was going through your proposal , because I realize you haven't yet received any reviews on your proposal yet and also because submission deadline is approaching . I also read something about sympy's patch requirement for being accepted on the application template wiki

[sympy] Re: GSOC Proposal

Hello SymPy Community, I completed writing my proposal although I was waiting if someone could reply as a suggestion or something like the idea suggested can be implemented in SymPy, *yet no one replied* * as if the idea is not okay but I was hoping a reply even for that* (earlier in the

Re: [sympy] Re: GSOC proposal feedback (Refactor the ODE module and make it fast)

Hi Mohit, Ok great, I suspected this was the idea but it was not so clear from the proposal. I think it is a good move forward in creating a better structured ODE solver. It will make it easier to debug and improve individual solvers and gives a good structure to the overall DE solver.

Re: [sympy] Re: GSOC proposal feedback (Refactor the ODE module and make it fast)

Hi Nijso, Thanks for the feedback. Basic Idea is to implement an independent class for each solver and then from master ode.py we will just iterate and check if it matches the solver it will return the solution. Here is the issue link where Oscar suggested this approach : Link

[sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal Feedback 2021

if there is no chance of getting accepted since i just have one pull-request, I would appreciate if somebody tell me. On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 2:21:40 PM UTC+2 B Sh wrote: > > Hello, > Would you please provide feedback as soon as possible to my proposal >

[sympy] Re: GSOC proposal feedback (Refactor the ODE module and make it fast)

Hi Mohit, I looked at your proposal. It is not clear to me what the result of the refactoring would be in terms of the algorithmic implementation or the benefits to the ODE solver. Is it the idea to have independent classes and therefore solvers for each of the ODE solvers and classifiers,

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal: Extend Implementation of Different Vector Coodinate Systems to a Dot-Product Calculator

@Ankur another thing I noticed was that you define some inputs as restricted to being positive. I think we can build it so that we give the user as much freedom as possible with inputs. We can have it automatically reduce mod 2pi (or 360°) and make it the lowest positive representation of the

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal: Extend Implementation of Different Vector Coodinate Systems to a Dot-Product Calculator

@Ankur, another thing I noticed was that you define some inputs as restricted to being positive. I think we can build it so that we give the user as much freedom as possible with inputs. We can have it automatically reduce mod 2pi (or 360°) and make it the lowest positive representation of the

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal: Extend Implementation of Different Vector Coodinate Systems to a Dot-Product Calculator

ankur see attached - A symbol is not a function. For example if you want A to be a general function of symbols x, y, z your write - A = Function('A')(*(x,y,z)) don't ask me to explain the syntax I just use it. On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Mikayla Grace wrote:

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal: Extend Implementation of Different Vector Coodinate Systems to a Dot-Product Calculator

@brombo, I definitely agree there should be a system in place for easy conversion. I was thinking about allowing a user to input in whatever coordinate system they wanted but when implementing functions the vectors would get converted into rectangular coordinates, pushed through the function,

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal: Extend Implementation of Different Vector Coodinate Systems to a Dot-Product Calculator

I started some work on the above mentioned idea using https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/9937 as the starting point. The idea mentioned there was to use a curvilinear coordinate system to compute Divergence, Curl, etc. I am attaching the python code for the case of Spherical Coordinate System

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal: Extend Implementation of Different Vector Coodinate Systems to a Dot-Product Calculator

Start with a vector manifold defined in rectangular coordinates but with components that are functions of the new coordinates. For spherical coordinates - [image: \mathbf{R} = r(\cos(\phi)\mathbf{k}+\sin(\phi)(\sin(\theta)\mathbf{i})+\cos(\theta)\mathbf{j})] [image: \mathbf{R}] defines the

[sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal: Extend Implementation of Different Vector Coodinate Systems to a Dot-Product Calculator

Edit: I did find the work on dot products, and it looks like the framework is solid, which means that implementing other coordinate systems and allowing the function "dot" to accept these other vector representations would be a great extension to the current project idea that I would like to

[sympy] Re: GSOC Proposal Web-Based backend for Plotting module

BTW, I have a merged PR in Gamma based on JS. Does that count? March 20, 2014 11:34:31 PM UTC+5:30, SAHIL SHEKHAWAT wrote: I have drafted the outlines for the project according to the discussion and various suggestions by other experienced developers. you can look it here

[sympy] Re: GSOC Proposal: Improving SymPyGamma

Please give a few minutes of your time to see what I have. On Saturday, March 15, 2014 9:04:27 PM UTC+5:30, SAHIL SHEKHAWAT wrote: Hi everyone! I have my proposal at https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/GSoC-2014-Application-Sahil-Shekhawat%3A-Improving-SymPyGamma. I think the idea is

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal

Yes, please do. Last year there were about 25 proposals. It's impossible for me to maintain a mental mapping of {real name, GitHub username, Google Code username, IRC nickname, google-melange link_id} for 25 people (and by the way, it's even harder when one or more of them are completely different

[sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal

I don't mean to bug you guys, but since my project idea is new and not in the current list of ideas for SymPy, I would like some general inputs from the community about my proposal. Could somebody from sympy.physics or the potential mentors please review it? And Aaron, does it meet the

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal

The application template is more of a guide than a strict template. The main things that I am a stickler about are the metadata type things at the top (various usernames, and also the list of contributions), because that is information that is difficult for me to find on my own. But it looks like

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal

No, that's your username on the Google Code issue tracker. Aaron Meurer On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Sachin Joglekar srjoglekar...@gmail.com wrote: Google Code username will be what I will get after registering on Google Melange if I am not wrong? Are students allowed to do that now? On

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal

Oh. Its the same as my email then. I will add it nonetheless. On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Aaron Meurer asmeu...@gmail.com wrote: No, that's your username on the Google Code issue tracker. Aaron Meurer On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Sachin Joglekar srjoglekar...@gmail.com wrote:

[sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal

Hello everyone. Sorry about being out of touch for some time now. I have worked on my project idea to quite some extent and I am done with the first draft of the API I plan to implement. I have put up my proposal on the wiki, the link is-

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal

Sachin, The api you've suggested is a nice goal. We have a similar goal for the mechanics module. i.e. we'd like to have a world/system class and add rigid bodies to it, then define those bodies' relationships and finally generate the equations of motion for that world/system. We started by

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal

Well, I have to agree with you. For any branch of physics, a sandbox world for it is a long way to go. From what I see, even the development of a comprehensive ElectroMagneticField would take considerable thought and planning, especially considering the implementation of concepts like time and

[sympy] Re: GSoC Proposal

@moorepants, would like your input on the API idea. I want to finalize my entire project idea before I start with my proposal. @asmeurer, do you think I could get a mentor on this, considering no work has been done in sympy in this direction till now? -- You received this message because you

Re: [sympy] Re: GSOC proposal (add plot functionality to sympy live and ascii plotting)

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Bharath M R catchmrbhar...@gmail.com wrote: Text plotting is implemented to a certain extent in sympy.I missed that before  And it looks very nice. What are the improvements that can be done? While I am far from being critical or claiming any authority in the

[sympy] Re: GSOC proposal (add plot functionality to sympy live and ascii plotting)

Maybe some cave dwellers who use dot-matrix printers find ascii plots useful? I too am curious about the usefulness of ASCII plots. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sympy group. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. To

Re: [sympy] Re: GSOC proposal (add plot functionality to sympy live and ascii plotting)

On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:08:00 PM UTC+5:30, scolobb wrote: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Bharath M R catchmrbhar...@gmail.com wrote: Text plotting is implemented to a certain extent in sympy.I missed that before And it looks very nice. What are the improvements that can be

Re: [sympy] Re: GSOC proposal (add plot functionality to sympy live and ascii plotting)

I was looking through the matplotlib backend by Krastanov. I saw that to fix maybe all the problem we have to rewrite experimental_lambdify. Q: Is there same way to fix all possible problems? A: Probably by constructing our strings ourself by traversing the (func, args) tree and creating the