Re: Issue 2026 in sympy: Exact, algebraic, and integer_power substitution

Comment #9 on issue 2026 by asmeurer: Exact, algebraic, and integer_power substitution http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2026 The third case is a bit specific, but very important to making certain algorithms work, particularly integrate(). I need to find the blocking

Re: Issue 1823 in sympy: integral.atoms(Symbol) should introspect

Comment #24 on issue 1823 by jensen.o...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol) should introspect http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823 Another alternative is bound_symbols and free_symbols. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_variables_and_bound_variables -- You received this

Re: Issue 1823 in sympy: integral.atoms(Symbol) should introspect

Comment #25 on issue 1823 by Vinzent.Steinberg: integral.atoms(Symbol) should introspect http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823 I like bound and free (or maybe unbound) too. Basically it means the same as dependent/independent or variable/constant to me. (All this boils down

Issue 2179 in sympy: Lambda refactoring

Status: Started Owner: ronan.l...@gmail.com Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 2179 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Lambda refactoring http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2179 There are a few issues with Lambda which complicate the code for little benefit: * Lambda subclasses

Re: Issue 1735 in sympy: Rename .func attribute (.args too?)

Comment #25 on issue 1735 by elliso...@gmail.com: Rename .func attribute (.args too?) http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1735 I have found the .func name to be extremely confusing and would definitely recommend renaming itAs I have implemented more things in sympy for the

Re: Issue 1823 in sympy: integral.atoms(Symbol) should introspect

Comment #26 on issue 1823 by asmeurer: integral.atoms(Symbol) should introspect http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823 OK, given that WIkipedia article, I am now in favor of the ones the Øyvind gave. So is everyone in agreement that it should be a = Integral(x*y, (x, 1,

Re: Issue 2178 in sympy: A singleton object for the identity function

Updates: Blockedon: 2179 Comment #2 on issue 2178 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: A singleton object for the identity function http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2178 What you're mentioning isn't the identity function but a projection. The identity function has a single

Re: Issue 2179 in sympy: Lambda refactoring

Issue 2179: Lambda refactoring http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2179 This issue is now blocking issue 2178. See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2178 -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred

Re: Issue 2179 in sympy: Lambda refactoring

Comment #1 on issue 2179 by asmeurer: Lambda refactoring http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2179 1. So what should the class structure look like? 2. I don't understand what you are saying here. 3. I agree. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Issue 2178 in sympy: A singleton object for the identity function

Comment #3 on issue 2178 by asmeurer: A singleton object for the identity function http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2178 So you think we should have a separate Proj function, that works like I described above? I don't see why Id can't be made to do it as well, but if you

Re: Issue 2179 in sympy: Lambda refactoring

Comment #2 on issue 2179 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Lambda refactoring http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2179 1. For now, Lambda should just subclass Expr. If there is progress on issue 1688, Lambda should share code with the class of function objects. 2.

Re: Issue 2179 in sympy: Lambda refactoring

Comment #3 on issue 2179 by asmeurer: Lambda refactoring http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2179 OK. So I guess the curry code should be moved into a .curry() method that is not called automatically. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Issue 1823 in sympy: integral.atoms(Symbol) should introspect

Comment #28 on issue 1823 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol) should introspect http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823 OK for 'free_symbols', but 'bound_symbols' is misleading if there are nested objects which bind variables as well. For instance,

Re: Issue 1823 in sympy: integral.atoms(Symbol) should introspect

Comment #29 on issue 1823 by smi...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol) should introspect http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823 It just has to introspect, I think. Changes have been made in [ https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/44 ]. See the final commit and the early commit

Re: Issue 2180 in sympy: examples/advanced/relativity.py stopped working

Comment #1 on issue 2180 by smi...@gmail.com: examples/advanced/relativity.py stopped working http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2180 I wonder if we should have these included in some way in the test suite. Or do we just have to run all the exampes by hand? -- You received