Comment #7 on issue 2265 by smi...@gmail.com: cse requires subexpressions
to be in the exact same order
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2265
OK, making that change gives
h[1] >>> cse([a+c, a+b+c])
([(x0, a + c)], [x0, b + x0])
But we're not going to check all permuta
Comment #6 on issue 2265 by smi...@gmail.com: cse requires subexpressions
to be in the exact same order
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2265
That's because I required it to be a Mul...let's see what happens when I
check for either Mul or Add. I'll report back in a few minute
Updates:
Summary: Jordan form transformation for matrices
Comment #3 on issue 2266 by smi...@gmail.com: Jordan form transformation
for matrices
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2266
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are
Status: NeedsDecision
Owner: smi...@gmail.com
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 2273 by smi...@gmail.com: should Real's absorb all numbers?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2273
We need to decide if Reals should absorb as much as can be evalf'ed as in
`2.0*pi` -> 6.2
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #24 on issue 1321 by smi...@gmail.com: trigonometric functions of
floating-point numbers should return floating-point numbers
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1321
This is in (along with a fix to the Matrix dosctring).
A new issue is being
Comment #17 on issue 2269 by ppn.onl...@me.com: Symplification of
transformation P applying to diagonal matrix.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2269
Pull request updated. But I think that having the three different methods
for simplification to all integers is a better idea
Status: Started
Owner: ronan.l...@gmail.com
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Critical NeedsReview
New issue 2272 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Lots of failures with Python 2.4 in
master
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2272
I've finally installed Python 2.4 (it's actually very easy on U
Comment #7 on issue 2270 by andy.ter...@gmail.com: Matrix(...) + scalar
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2270
I agree with Ronan. When you allow the mixing of these types, silent bugs
creep into the code.
@Sherjil: The eye solution would only add the scalar to the diagonal, no
Comment #14 on issue 754 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: Have re and im call
expand(complex=True)
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=754
What needs to be done ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to this group, s
Comment #7 on issue 1077 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: pi, EulerGamma in
Algebraic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1077
see https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/223
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to this
Comment #6 on issue 1077 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: pi, EulerGamma in
Algebraic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1077
No, It hasn't. I'm working on it.
Which name is preferred, .is_AlgebraicNumber or is_algebraic ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Comment #5 on issue 1077 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: pi, EulerGamma in
Algebraic
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1077
This issue has been fixed.
In [36]: E.is_AlgebraicNumber
Out[36]: False
In [37]: pi.is_AlgebraicNumber
Out[37]: False
In [38]: EulerGamma.is_AlgebraicNumber
Comment #18 on issue 1473 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: __mod__ does not work
on reals
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1473
Sorry, This isn't a relational. Its an operation. Should we consider making
a Mod class like Add, Mul ?
--
You received this message because you are subs
Comment #17 on issue 1473 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: __mod__ does not work
on reals
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1473
How about a Mod class ?
Or should this be added to Relational ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues"
Comment #6 on issue 2270 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: Matrix(...) + scalar
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2270
How about we use the eye version for Square matrices and raise a TypeError
for anything else ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_matrix#Scalar_matrix
--
You recei
Updates:
Status: NeedsDecision
Comment #5 on issue 2270 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Matrix(...) + scalar
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2270
No, I don't think that's a good idea for matrices. numpy does it for
the "wrong" reasons, to be consistent with ndarrays for which
Updates:
Status: NeedsDecision
Comment #14 on issue 934 by asmeurer: Lambdify with Matrix and python math
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=934
We have a special status for that nowadays, btw.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"s
Comment #16 on issue 2269 by asmeurer: Symplification of transformation P
applying to diagonal matrix.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2269
Non-project members cannot edit any of the fields, including CC, so you
will have to fix it if it is wrong.
But if you click on his
Updates:
Labels: NeedsReview sherjilozair
Comment #11 on issue 887 by asmeurer: should m[1.1] be allowed for Matrices?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=887
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou
Comment #13 on issue 934 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Lambdify with Matrix and
python math
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=934
Either implement the proposed behavior or add a hint to the docstring how
to achieve it. There has been no decision about this.
--
You received this mess
Updates:
Labels: Plotting
Comment #6 on issue 182 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Plot linear maps
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=182
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To p
Updates:
Status: Accepted
Comment #4 on issue 2270 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Matrix(...) + scalar
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2270
In mpmath we decided to implement it as 'A + x == A + ones(m, n)*x'. This
consistent with numpy:
form numpy import array
a = array([[1,2
Status: Accepted
Owner: Vinzent.Steinberg
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Series
New issue 2271 by Vinzent.Steinberg: integrate returns log(oo - I)
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2271
In [8]: integrate(apart((x**2+1)**(-2)),(x,0,oo))
Out[8]:
π ⅈ⋅log(∞ - ⅈ) ⅈ⋅log(∞ + ⅈ)
Updates:
Labels: Matrices
Comment #3 on issue 2270 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: Matrix(...) + scalar
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2270
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" g
Comment #2 on issue 2270 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: Matrix(...) + scalar
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2270
Could you give an example as to when this should raise an exception ?
And what exactly do you mean by explicit type conversion ?
--
You received this message because you
Comment #1 on issue 2270 by pr...@goodok.ru: Matrix(...) + scalar
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2270
I think that only exception must be (more readable though), when we try to
add the objects which belong to differing algebraic fields.
if the operation `A + x*eye(3)` is reall
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 2270 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: Matrix(...) + scalar
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2270
Currently,
In [9]: A
Out[9]:
⎡1 2 3 ⎤
⎢⎥
⎢1 4 27⎥
⎢⎥
⎣4 5 6 ⎦
In [10]: A + x
Comment #16 on issue 388 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: NotImplementedError in
matrices
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=388
What has the decision been on sympify returning matrix as is ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" g
Comment #12 on issue 934 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: Lambdify with Matrix and
python math
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=934
What needs to be done ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to this group, send
Comment #5 on issue 182 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: Plot linear maps
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=182
Could someone add another label to this ? graphics or plotting or something
similar. This isn't only matrices.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Updates:
Cc: -ppnonl...@gmail.com ppn.onl...@me.com
Comment #15 on issue 2269 by pr...@goodok.ru: Symplification of
transformation P applying to diagonal matrix.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2269
Please, push something. And we'll see.
BTW, it was not necessary to
Comment #10 on issue 887 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: should m[1.1] be allowed
for Matrices?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=887
see https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/220
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To pos
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Cc: ronan.l...@gmail.com
Labels: -NeedsReview PassedReview
Comment #14 on issue 760 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Improvements to
Basic.is_number
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=760
This is in now. Basic.is_number has been kept (returning
Comment #13 on issue 1304 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Integrate sqrt(x**2 + y**2)
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1304
Without typo:
In [4]: integrate(1/(x**2 + y**2)**(Rational(3,2)),y)
Out[4]:
⌠
⎮ 1
⎮ dy
⎮ 3/2
⎮ ⎛ 22⎞
⎮ ⎝x + y ⎠
⌡
--
You re
Comment #12 on issue 1304 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Integrate sqrt(x**2 + y**2)
fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1304
I pushed in another patch for integrands of the form sqrt(x**2 - y**2). Is
there anything left to do? We now have
In [1]: integrate(sqrt(x**2+y**2), x)
O
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Owner: ---
Labels: -NeedsReview PassedReview
Comment #2 on issue 1715 by Vinzent.Steinberg: limit((x + 1)**(1/ln(x +
1)), x, oo) fails
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1715
This is in now.
--
You received this message because you
Comment #14 on issue 2269 by ppn.onl...@me.com: Symplification of
transformation P applying to diagonal matrix.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2269
my email in cc is wrong and I didn't get notifications of the comments till
now, just went over all of them.
You can disreg
Comment #9 on issue 887 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: should m[1.1] be allowed
for Matrices?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=887
That's it then. I'll edit to to typecheck whether i and j are ints or have
__index__ implemented. For any other case it will return an IndexError.
-
Comment #8 on issue 887 by asmeurer: should m[1.1] be allowed for Matrices?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=887
__index__ was recently added for Integer (see issue 2125).
I agree with Andy. It is better to follow the Python convention here.
--
You received this message because
Comment #13 on issue 2269 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: Symplification of
transformation P applying to diagonal matrix.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2269
One way to handle this could be
if self._eigenvects == None or self._eigenvects.has(Rational):
self._eigen
Comment #12 on issue 2269 by ppn.onl...@me.com: Symplification of
transformation P applying to diagonal matrix.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2269
So I have implemented the simplification within the eigenvects function if
the flag 'integers' is set to true. Going back to
Comment #6 on issue 2203 by andy.ter...@gmail.com: doctest does not test
IPython interactive sessions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2203
It would be better to change the docs. The >>> will be more familiar to
new users that don't know IPython.
--
You received this messa
Comment #7 on issue 2269 by andy.ter...@gmail.com: Symplification of
transformation P applying to diagonal matrix.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2269
First, use meaningful names. ie, fraction_free not FF but even
fraction_free is misleading.
Why is this needed? It is a
Comment #5 on issue 887 by andy.ter...@gmail.com: should m[1.1] be allowed
for Matrices?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=887
This is terrible. It allows errors to go through the interface silently.
My guess is that numpy lets the c signature handle the type coersion, but
Updates:
Summary: cse requires subexpressions to be in the exact same order
Comment #5 on issue 2265 by andy.ter...@gmail.com: cse requires
subexpressions to be in the exact same order
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2265
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
Y
Comment #4 on issue 2265 by andy.ter...@gmail.com: cse fails for
multiplication
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2265
Thanks for looking at this!
I know several people who have emailed me about these cse issues and I
think most of the bugs are be due to the current module on
Comment #5 on issue 2203 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: doctest does not test
IPython interactive sessions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2203
I meant how to edit the tester ./bin/doctest so that it can also test
IPython examples. Is the doctester written in C ?
--
You receive
Comment #6 on issue 2269 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: Symplification of
transformation P applying to diagonal matrix.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2269
Yes, a flag, maybe FF=True (FF stands for fraction free), would be good.
--
You received this message because you are subsc
Comment #6 on issue 1168 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: Matrix([[x+y, -x, 0],
[-x-y, x, 1], [0,1,0]]).inf() gives wrong result
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1168
subs(oo, 100) doesn't substitute all the infinities. Why is that so ? If it
would have worked, we could have such an
Comment #5 on issue 2269 by pr...@goodok.ru: Symplification of
transformation P applying to diagonal matrix.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2269
The reasons to implement simplification in the eigenvecs method (activated
through a flag are):
- it concern more eigenvecs its
Comment #4 on issue 2269 by ppn.onl...@me.com: Symplification of
transformation P applying to diagonal matrix.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2269
So just to make sure, would it be better to have the simplification in the
diagonalize mehtod or on the eigenvecs method and a
Comment #8 on issue 342 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: Allow construction of
matrices from blocks
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=342
@Aaron, no this example wouldn't be possible. Block matrices will be
entered into the matrix just like elements are. So all the matrices would
h
Comment #3 on issue 2265 by smi...@gmail.com: cse fails for multiplication
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2265
see my 2265 branch for initial changes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to this group, send
Comment #2 on issue 2266 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: Jordan form
tranformation for matrices
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2266
Do send the PDF. Does it have the algorithm ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To
Comment #2 on issue 2265 by smi...@gmail.com: cse fails for multiplication
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2265
(sorry whereas)
cse only looks for repeated args, not sub-args, so a*c is never seen as an
arg in a*b*c -- to detect such a thing would require checking whether a*c
Comment #4 on issue 887 by sherjilo...@gmail.com: should m[1.1] be allowed
for Matrices?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=887
As we follow numpy to decide what to do when this sort of inconsistency
occurs, and as no one has objected to the way it is now for more than 2
year
Comment #1 on issue 2265 by smi...@gmail.com: cse fails for multiplication
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2265
...wheras it does work for addition:
h[7] >>> cse([a*c,a*c+b])
([(x0, a*c)], [x0, b + x0])
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goog
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #4 on issue 2092 by smi...@gmail.com: solve4linearsymbol should be
hidden or fixed
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2092
This function has been removed from order.py where it was not being used.
The code that would have used it has also
Updates:
Status: Started
Cc: ppnonl...@gmail.com
Labels: ppn.online
Comment #3 on issue 2269 by pr...@goodok.ru: Symplification of
transformation P applying to diagonal matrix.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2269
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/21
59 matches
Mail list logo
