Thank you, this version works. (Now I have to find out to which extent
the inequalities can be solved; it seems to me that many functions
have to be converted to MacLaurin series before. Moreover, it would be
handy to convert inequalities to an interval.)
--
You received this message because you
Hi,
On 18 November 2010 08:03, Filip Dominec wrote:
> Thank you, this version works. (Now I have to find out to which extent
> the inequalities can be solved; it seems to me that many functions
> have to be converted to MacLaurin series before. Moreover, it would be
> handy to convert inequaliti
On Nov 18, 7:02 pm, Mateusz Paprocki wrote:
> it can be easily extended
> to support rational functions and absolute values (somewhere I have
> preliminary code for this).
Cool. Right now I am using sympy to solve some calculations for
geometrical optics. These problems boiled down to a system
>> I don't see 1694B there, only 1694 and 1694cov.
>>
Sorry. It's there now.
/c
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sympy+unsubsc
I observe following behavior:
In [113]: solve([Le((-1 + x),(-2 + x+x**3)), Assume(x,Q.real)], x,
relational=False)
Out[113]: [[1, ∞)]
In [114]: solve([Le((-1 + x)/(-2 + x+x**3),1), Assume(x,Q.real)], x,
relational=False)
NotImplementedError (...)
But there is a workaround: one must put th
I observe following behavior:
In [113]: solve([Le((-1 + x),(-2 + x+x**3)), Assume(x,Q.real)], x,
relational=False)
Out[113]: [[1, ∞)]
In [114]: solve([Le((-1 + x)/(-2 + x+x**3),1), Assume(x,Q.real)], x,
relational=False)
NotImplementedError (...)
But there is a workaround: one must put th
I am working on a new solve() routine to fix the issue discussed in my
previous post.
However, I observed a bug (?) that sticks deep in the code. I am using
the "git clone https://matt...@github.com/mattpap/sympy-polys.git; cd
sympy-polys ; git checkout polys11" version.
In [388]: solve([Le(3,
Now it is possible to calculate for example this:
In [451]: SolveFractionIeq((2*x-1)/(x-1), (2*x-1)/x, x)
Out[451]: [[1/2, 1], (-∞, 0]]
... which is almost correct if we omit the closedness of intervals
(somebody fixes?).
Note that the aforementioned UnboundLocalError in inequalities.py
prevents
If I can contribute to the discussion, I support the simpler behavior
when Le(3,4) stays as a inequation until it has to be evaluated. Not
only the shortcut to True/False has now proven to bring in an error in
the solving routine, it is possible that in some situation one will
want to extract the l
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:51:59AM -0800, Filip Dominec wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 18, 7:02 pm, Mateusz Paprocki wrote:
> > it can be easily extended
> > to support rational functions and absolute values (somewhere I have
> > preliminary code for this).
>
> Cool. Right now I am using sympy to sol
On Nov 18, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Mateusz Paprocki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:51:59AM -0800, Filip Dominec wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Nov 18, 7:02 pm, Mateusz Paprocki wrote:
>>> it can be easily extended
>>> to support rational functions and absolute values (somewhere I have
>>> prelimin
Filip Dominec wrote:
> On Nov 18, 7:02 pm, Mateusz Paprocki wrote:
>> it can be easily extended
>> to support rational functions and absolute values (somewhere I have
>> preliminary code for this).
>
> Cool. Right now I am using sympy to solve some calculations for
> geometrical optics. These pro
Hi,
On 19 November 2010 02:13, Chris Smith wrote:
> Filip Dominec wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 7:02 pm, Mateusz Paprocki wrote:
> >> it can be easily extended
> >> to support rational functions and absolute values (somewhere I have
> >> preliminary code for this).
> >
> > Cool. Right now I am using sy
Perhaps it has something to do with solve not taking into account that
Le() and friends evaluate themselves to a boolean in trivial cases:
In [1]: Le(3,4)
Out[1]: True
But the only way to really know for sure is to debug the code.
By the way, there's been some debate before on whether or not it
I agree. If anything, I think we may need to have separate classes to
represent a < b the inequality and a < b the boolean. One problem
with Le(3, 4) not returning True is that constructs like
if a < b:
do something
will break if a or b are sympified, because a < b returns Lt(a, b) in
that c
15 matches
Mail list logo
