Comment #25 on issue 1923 by smichr: count_ops doesn't return a count (by
default)
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1923
A pull request for the 1923 (not 1694) portion of this issue has been made.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"s
Updates:
Labels: smichr
Comment #1 on issue 2080 by smichr: WildFunction needs to reference
Dummy.dummycount not Symbol.dummycount
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2080
A pull request has now been made for this issue. It's a very short patch
and quick review.
Should
Comment #14 on issue 2096 by nicolas.pourcelot: 1/0 should be zoo, not oo
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2096
@smichr: why not.
(However, is this really useful ? I'm not much convinced anymore.)
@Vinzent: "This should be easy to fix though." (Comment 6)
So thought I. ;)
I inte
Updates:
Labels: NeedsReview smichr
Comment #1 on issue 2095 by smichr: Ana Flores solution for quartic
equation is broken
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2095
A pull request has been made for this issue.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Comment #5 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
I think it's ok.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to this group, send email to symp
Updates:
Labels: NeedsReview smichr
Comment #1 on issue 2092 by smichr: solve4linearsymbol should be hidden or
fixed
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2092
A pull request has been made.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #6 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
Hmm, I spoke to quickly:
limit(x+1/x,x,0,dir='-')
-oo # ok
limit(1/x**2+1/x,x,0,dir='-')
-oo # wro
Comment #7 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
This is caused by the following bug (in master too) :
limit(1/x**2,x,0,dir='-')
-oo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview
Comment #8 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
This was a separate but related issue: a Pow instead of an Add.
Added a new commit to 2084.
--
You received this mes
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #9 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
Two comments:
1) About 1/x**(p/q) with x<0:
gruntz(1/x**Rational(3,2),x,0,dir='-')
oo*I
limit(1/x*
Comment #10 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
A cleaner version to illustrate what I meant (I didn't adapt tests).
Attachments:
0001-second-Pow-issue-try.patch 1.3 KB
--
You received this messa
Comment #23 on issue 2085 by nicolas.pourcelot: Limit code severely broken.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2085
@Vinzent: "I would rather implement L'Hôpital's rule for such cases."
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule
Suppose that either
Comment #1 on issue 2097 by pevzi23: sin(oo) and cos(oo) should return NaN
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2097
In [31]: limit(cos(x)/x, x, oo)
Out[31]: nan
In [32]: limit(sin(x)/x, x, oo)
Out[32]: nan
Nope, that's not a correct solution.
--
You received this message because y
Comment #2 on issue 2097 by nicolas.pourcelot: sin(oo) and cos(oo) should
return NaN
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2097
Limits are clearly a different issue (usually, you can't calculate limits
just by substituting values !).
So, this does not intend to solve issue 2085.
Comment #11 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
but x**0 should be 1 no matter what, shouldn't it?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to this grou
Comment #12 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
I think x**0 is already automatically converted to 1 by sympy, isn't it ?
x**0
1
So, computing limit(x**0, x, 0) results in limit(1, x, 0), not matter
w
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview
Comment #13 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
What about positive rationals from the left? Does this now look right?
x**(1/2) dir= - = zoo
x**(1/2) dir= + = 0
x**
Comment #14 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
I'll add the tests tonight or tomorrow.
var('x')
from sympy.utilities.iterables import cartes
for args in cartes([-1,1],[2,3,Rational(1,2),Rational(2,3)],['-', '+']):
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #15 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
"What about positive rationals from the left? Does this now look right?
x**(1/2) dir= - = zoo
...
x**(
Comment #16 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
On my 2084 branch (with the patch I attached previously):
x**(-2) dir= - = oo
x**(-2) dir= + = oo
x**(-3) dir= - = -oo
x**(-3) dir= + = oo
x**(-1/2) dir= - =
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview
Comment #17 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
Chris, I rebased your 2 commits and my patch.
I also added your quite exhaustive test suggestion.
The
Comment #18 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
I'm not sure about adding all the tests. Tests should test coverage and
assert behavior that shouldn't change. They aren't all needed for coverage.
They do assert what
Comment #24 on issue 2085 by asmeurer: Limit code severely broken.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2085
Yes, you use l'Hopital's rule for that limit at 0, not infinity. Nicholas
is correct with the bounded part. Just be careful with whatever rule you
implement. Something I
Comment #15 on issue 2096 by asmeurer: 1/0 should be zoo, not oo
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2096
It get's better:
In [1]: oo.p
Out[1]: 1
In [2]: oo.q
Out[2]: 0
In [3]: (-oo).p
Out[3]: -1
In [4]: (-oo).q
Out[4]: 0
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Comment #10 on issue 2041 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Doctest failures in Python
2.6.6
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2041
So, what do we do?
Either we have to find a work-around or to bug upstream until they release
a fixed Python 2.6, I'd say.
--
You received this message
Comment #11 on issue 2041 by asmeurer: Doctest failures in Python 2.6.6
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2041
We already have a chunk of the Python doctest runner copied and modified
over into our doctest runner (compare our sympy/utilities/runtests.py with
http://svn.python.o
Comment #5 on issue 2091 by asmeurer: has() might need wild flag
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2091
Well we can set the default in has() to be match=False.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to this group
Comment #26 on issue 1923 by asmeurer: count_ops doesn't return a count (by
default)
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1923
It's https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/23, by the way.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" grou
Comment #19 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
"limit(r**(-Rational(1,2)), r, 0, '-') would then be oo not I*oo, right?"
No, once again, this doesn't change anything:
(-.0001)**(S(1)/2) # -.0001
Comment #2 on issue 2080 by asmeurer: WildFunction needs to reference
Dummy.dummycount not Symbol.dummycount
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2080
You should make a note of them here. Also, don't forget to add a link to,
or at least a reference to the number of the pull requ
Comment #2 on issue 2095 by asmeurer: Ana Flores solution for quartic
equation is broken
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2095
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/26
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to
Comment #20 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-')
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
(Sorry, previous comment deleted... this was not the right example.)
"limit(r**(-Rational(1,2)), r, 0, '-') would then be oo not I*oo, right?"
No, once agai
Comment #2 on issue 2092 by asmeurer: solve4linearsymbol should be hidden
or fixed
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2092
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/27
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to this g
Comment #21 on issue 2084 by asmeurer: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
This is the pull request: https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/29
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To
Comment #3 on issue 2097 by asmeurer: sin(oo) and cos(oo) should return NaN
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2097
limit() should be written completely independently of evaluation at
infinities/singularities in my opinion. Actually, ideally evaluation at
such points would call
Comment #16 on issue 2096 by Vinzent.Steinberg: 1/0 should be zoo, not oo
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2096
oo inheriting from Rational was apparently implemented with the assumption
that 1/0 == oo (respectively -1/0 == -oo) a long time ago. This should be
fixed, oo really
Comment #22 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084
I must be forgetting to put in the minus sign when I do the test. I'll make
the change and repush.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Comment #17 on issue 2096 by Vinzent.Steinberg: 1/0 should be zoo, not oo
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2096
Also related:
In [6]: oo**0
Out[6]: 1
In [8]: S(0)**0
Out[8]: 1
In [10]: nan**0
Out[10]: 1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G
Comment #3 on issue 2092 by smichr: solve4linearsymbol should be hidden or
fixed
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2092
Thanks for the additions, Aaron. I'll try to remember to put those on in
the future.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 2098 by niels.ellegaard: solve(x**2+1,x) does not check if x is
real.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2098
The equation x**2+1=0 does not have real solutions, so the following line
should not return any so
Comment #18 on issue 2096 by asmeurer: 1/0 should be zoo, not oo
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2096
I don't like this roo. I don't see how it is any different from just oo.
As for the others:
[6]: I don't know. Maple gives that though.
The math seems to indicate that th
Updates:
Status: Accepted
Cc: nicolas.pourcelot smichr
Comment #1 on issue 2098 by asmeurer: solve(x**2+1,x) does not check if x
is real.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2098
So obviously solve should be checking the assumptions on x to weed out
solutions. T
Comment #19 on issue 2096 by nicolas.pourcelot: 1/0 should be zoo, not oo
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2096
"I don't like this roo. I don't see how it is any different from just oo."
(Comment 18)
Yes, roo is really different from oo.
However, I'm not convinced it is current
Comment #20 on issue 2096 by asmeurer: 1/0 should be zoo, not oo
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2096
I get it, it's compactified real infinity. No, I don't think that's
useful. We always use the Riemann sphere in the complex plane, but the use
of the Riemann circle in the
Comment #21 on issue 2096 by nicolas.pourcelot: 1/0 should be zoo, not oo
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2096
Comment 20 (Aaron):
Yes, exactly.
Comment 17 (Vinzent):
Concerning 0^0=1, see also
http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=15&ved=0CF0QFjAO&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmath
Comment #22 on issue 2096 by Vinzent.Steinberg: 1/0 should be zoo, not oo
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2096
Thanks for the interesting read, Nicolas.
So let's go for usability. 0^0 = 1 is fine and oo^0 == 1 makes at least
some sense. And about nan we all agree. :)
--
You
Comment #23 on issue 2096 by smichr: 1/0 should be zoo, not oo
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2096
In [10] of comment 18 gives the following in t2:
limit((oo)**(x), x, 0)
oo
It's not "1" but it's not infinite recursion, either. Why would it be
anything other than 1? All nu
47 matches
Mail list logo
