Re: Issue 966 in sympy: Can't simplify exp(2 * pi * I * a) when a is integer

Comment #70 on issue 966 by smichr: Can't simplify exp(2 * pi * I * a) when a is integer http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=966 Actually, I should be clearer: 1) the original issue of exp(2*pi*I*an_integer) already works in master 2) there were two tests introduced in the

Issue 1982 in sympy: use is None instead of == None

Status: Accepted Owner: smichr Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 1982 by smichr: use is None instead of == None http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1982 This issues pops up form time to time and I went ahead and made all == None into is None and != None into is not

Issue 1983 in sympy: unify mul and pow handling of Add**e

Status: Accepted Owner: smichr Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 1983 by smichr: unify mul and pow handling of Add**e http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1983 During the flatten procedure in Mul, code duplicates Add's extraction of a root from a power that appears in

Issue 1984 in sympy: canonicalize bases of powers with respect to sign

Status: Accepted Owner: smichr Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 1984 by smichr: canonicalize bases of powers with respect to sign http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1984 tba -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sympy-issues

Re: Issue 1984 in sympy: canonicalize bases of powers with respect to sign

Comment #1 on issue 1984 by smichr: canonicalize bases of powers with respect to sign http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1984 In order for expressions like (3-x)**2 - (x-3)**2 to automatically be recognized as 0, the bases of powers must be canonicalized. This patch

Re: Issue 1977 in sympy: symbols() gives unexpected behavior when passed a list of length 1

Comment #4 on issue 1977 by smichr: symbols() gives unexpected behavior when passed a list of length 1 http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1977 These look like great changes! Does it have an option to inject the variables into the locals like var? -- You received this message

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #102 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 regarding comment 83: use of sets for testing. The sets don't solve the issue for docstring tests, however, since the string form of the result is what is being

Re: Issue 1982 in sympy: use is None instead of == None

Comment #1 on issue 1982 by asmeurer: use is None instead of == None http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1982 As long as we are talking about this, I was talking with someone on IRC a while back about bugs he was having in pypy because of an a is 1 line somewhere (cython

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #103 on issue 1694 by asmeurer: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 I think we need to come up with a way of canonically sorting SymPy objects that is independent of architecture. -- You received this message because you are

Re: Issue 1982 in sympy: use is None instead of == None

Comment #2 on issue 1982 by smichr: use is None instead of == None http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1982 Apparently not all S.anything...-S.EmptySet is S.EmptySet.complement fails from test_sets.py -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Issue 1982 in sympy: use is None instead of == None

Comment #3 on issue 1982 by smichr: use is None instead of == None http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1982 APplying this to things like opt == True takes away the freedom to specify an option like foo(opt=1) or foo(opt=True) since 1 and 0 are shortcuts for the same. So at least

Re: Issue 1982 in sympy: use is None instead of == None

Comment #4 on issue 1982 by asmeurer: use is None instead of == None http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1982 Apparently not all S.anything...-S.EmptySet is S.EmptySet.complement fails from test_sets.py So do we need a S.UniversalSet? APplying this to things like opt == True

Re: Issue 1985 in sympy: as_real_imag() gives wrong answer when expanding quotient

Comment #1 on issue 1985 by renato.c...@gmail.com: as_real_imag() gives wrong answer when expanding quotient http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1985 A simple workaround is to use expand(complex=True, deep=True). Actually, all as_real_imag() does is expand(complex=True,

Re: Issue 1985 in sympy: as_real_imag() gives wrong answer when expanding quotient

Comment #2 on issue 1985 by asmeurer: as_real_imag() gives wrong answer when expanding quotient http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1985 The recursion is because re() calls as_real_imag on it's argument to get the real part, whereas .as_real_imag() calls expand(complex=True),

Re: Issue 1985 in sympy: as_real_imag() gives wrong answer when expanding quotient

Comment #3 on issue 1985 by asmeurer: as_real_imag() gives wrong answer when expanding quotient http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1985 Actually, whenever the new assumptions work (or is that now already?), we could/should just use that. In other words, have re(), im(), and

Re: Issue 1985 in sympy: as_real_imag() gives wrong answer when expanding quotient

Comment #5 on issue 1985 by asmeurer: as_real_imag() gives wrong answer when expanding quotient http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1985 You usually want the two in pairs, so I think as_real_imag() has its place. I just do not at all like that code that assumes

Re: Issue 1985 in sympy: as_real_imag() gives wrong answer when expanding quotient

Comment #6 on issue 1985 by renato.c...@gmail.com: as_real_imag() gives wrong answer when expanding quotient http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1985 Playing with it a bit more, looks like ask(expr, Q.real) works well in this case, and could be used the way Aaron said. I'll