On Aug 17, 10:43 am, New2Sympy wrote:
> I looked at the all_coeffs() option
> before, but could get it to work, probably because of the data types
> you explain.
It should be fixed in current sympy HEAD.
Vinzent
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message bec
Thanks! This puts me on the road again :)
That is a great tutorial... I looked at the all_coeffs() option
before, but could get it to work, probably because of the data types
you explain.
I guess it's time that I take a look at the numerical methods courses
from my college years.
Thanks.
Regar
> > Second Variant (using Poly) kind of works, but there is a small fix
> > required. "mypoly.coeffs" ommits the zeros, therefore if the
> > coefficients for x^0, x^1 and x^3 are 0, they would not appear. Is
> > this a bug or a feature?
[cut]
> Now there must be a better way to do this [...to get
On Aug 14, 3:37 pm, New2Sympy wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I am getting confused now. See the script and the results below.
>
You are running into numerical issues (underflow, I belileve) because
of scaling issues. If you don't normalize your polynomial then the the
coefficients of the polynomial are
Hi again,
I am getting confused now. See the script and the results below.
First Variant (using nsolve) finds some extra solutions, that probably
would be gone changed the tolerance, but using the option tol=1e-25
crashes, in fact, I could not go beyond tol=1e-21.
Second Variant (using Poly) ki
On Aug 12, 4:48 pm, Anartz Unamuno wrote:
> Below is the outcome I get when I use myEqConstants.n(100):
>
> third variant:
> [-0.192261149873352 + .0e-21⋅ⅈ, -29.4436689512432 + .0e-19⋅ⅈ,
> 27.1235615040264 - .0e-19⋅ⅈ, 0, 0.192368597090154 - .0e-21
> ⋅ⅈ]
>
> the imaginary parts are zeros, but th
Below is the outcome I get when I use myEqConstants.n(100):
third variant:
[-0.192261149873352 + .0e-21⋅ⅈ, -29.4436689512432 + .0e-19⋅ⅈ,
27.1235615040264 - .0e-19⋅ⅈ, 0, 0.192368597090154 - .0e-21
⋅ⅈ]
the imaginary parts are zeros, but they are still in the solution. Should
they not disappear?
Th
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Vinzent
Steinberg wrote:
>
> # mpmath has a solver for polynomials, but we have to convert it to a
> list of
> # coefficients (please not that the results are not very accurate, you
> can refine
> # them using an iterative solver)
polyroots should give full accur
I did use the nsolve before (that was the topic of my first post :)),
but I need to find all the solutions in a range, and solutions can be
very close to each other depending on the constants. I am trying to
optimize a problem, so I would like to check the final outcome for all
valid solutions. I
There are three variants to solve this using sympy, and you chose the
slowest one. ;)
Why do you want to solve it symbolically? It's a polynomial of 6th
degree, so there are probably very complex symbolic solution, if any.
The best way to get the solutions is using mpmath.polyroots, see [1].
Ju
I think I am in agreement with Vinzent, this would probably solve the
issue I am having now...
I am trying to obtain the solutions using the linex below. When I
solve for the constants assigned to the variables, I get complex
solutions with very small imaginary components, that should be real
sol
On 6 Aug., 19:57, smichr wrote:
> On Aug 5, 9:29 pm, Vinzent Steinberg
>
> wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 12:14 am, smichr wrote:
>
> > > >>> num,den = (1/(.001+a)**3-6/(.9-a)**3).as_numer_denom()
> > > >>> nsolve(num,a,.3) # no need for sympy now
>
> > Maybe solve()/nsolve() should do this for you. What
On Aug 5, 9:29 pm, Vinzent Steinberg
wrote:
> On Aug 2, 12:14 am, smichr wrote:
>
> > >>> num,den = (1/(.001+a)**3-6/(.9-a)**3).as_numer_denom()
> > >>> nsolve(num,a,.3) # no need for sympy now
>
> Maybe solve()/nsolve() should do this for you. What do you think?
>
> Vinzent
I was thinking th
On Aug 2, 12:14 am, smichr wrote:
> >>> num,den = (1/(.001+a)**3-6/(.9-a)**3).as_numer_denom()
> >>> nsolve(num,a,.3) # no need for sympy now
Maybe solve()/nsolve() should do this for you. What do you think?
Vinzent
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:55 AM, smichr wrote:
>
>
>
> On Aug 3, 1:25 pm, New2Sympy wrote:
>> Thanks for your help! that was a complete answer :)
>>
>
> ...I could set my verbose flag to False :-) But sometimes these
> questions are good opportunities for learning, too. It's something
> that I've
On Aug 3, 1:25 pm, New2Sympy wrote:
> Thanks for your help! that was a complete answer :)
>
...I could set my verbose flag to False :-) But sometimes these
questions are good opportunities for learning, too. It's something
that I've appreciated about responses on the python tutor list.
/c
--
Thanks for your help! that was a complete answer :)
Best regards.
On Aug 2, 12:14 am, smichr wrote:
> On Jul 31, 7:08 pm, New2Sympy wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > I am trying to get the Real root as shown below and keep getting a
> > NameError. Any suggestions?
>
> [cut]
> > NameError: global name
On Jul 31, 7:08 pm, New2Sympy wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am trying to get the Real root as shown below and keep getting a
> NameError. Any suggestions?
>
[cut]
> NameError: global name 'conjugate' is not defined
>
When you ask for a numerical solution, the first thing that nsolve
does is evaluate
18 matches
Mail list logo
