Stefan, could you have a look at the page again?
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Stefan Krastanov wrote:
> Updated with a todo list:
> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/Vectors-EM-framework
>
> Try to make the wikipage easy to read. Think of this as if it was
> documentation for the module.
>
Updated with a todo list:
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/Vectors-EM-framework
Try to make the wikipage easy to read. Think of this as if it was
documentation for the module.
@Prasoon, if what Sachin has written is incompatible with what you have in
mind, just start a section below what he ha
@Sachin, it would be best to finish what we have here before we starting
discussion of motion.
I will add a TODO to the wiki page with the issues that I see (in about an
hour).
On 5 June 2013 10:31, Sachin Joglekar wrote:
> @Gilbert, we could also let a CoordSystem have a motion, with somethin
@Gilbert, we could also let a CoordSystem have a motion, with something
like
system_a.set_vel(translational = ..., angular = ) <- this would be with
respect to some system defined in that frame only.
Then coordinates of this system, when expressed in some other system, would
be functions of coo
Sachin,
I like where you are going with this. If I'm interpreting it correctly,
each CoordinateSystem has to be attached to a ReferenceFrame, and is fixed
(although possibly rotated and/or translated upon coordinate system
definition) with respect to that ReferenceFrame? Prasoon, Stefan, others -
w
@Stefan : I would recommend having a separate class for ScalarFields. Even
I wasn't sure of the need for this till yesterday, when we came across the
problem of how the user would define a scalar field in any coordinate
system he wants(which is not the global frame). In such cases, I propose
someth
Thanks for sharing this. Just one comment. I wouldn't let the mechanics way
prevent you all from doing this the "right" way. With the right way being
whatever a more general approach is. The mechanics module was designed from
a very narrow point of view in terms of the mathematics. Without thinking
And to be mean I will also write this down using the diffgeom module :)
Seriously though, while the diffgeom module uses a completely different
approach that is not compatible with the needs of the `mechanics` module
(on which we are focusing), having such a comparison will be useful to show
bad c
Here is a quick summary from today:
- probably scalar fields will be represented simply by SymPy expressions
where some of the symbols will have special meaning (the coordinates)
- probably vectors will be represented like in mechanics (one object, not
necessarily a sympy expression)
- using refe
The discussion was at http://piratepad.net/KBviCWUlA3.
I'm curious what you think of this kind of discussion, as opposed to
IRC. Google docs is also an option (it has a chat). I think the
downside is that unlike IRC, which is logged at
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_logs/sympy, it's a lit
Today we had the first discussion with Prasoon and Sachin about their
projects.
We did not progress much but at least we outlined the two general
approaches that we can use for these modules (specifically for creating
vector fields). I will give them somewhat arbitrary names here:
- the `mechanic
11 matches
Mail list logo
