Updates:
Status: Started
Comment #7 on issue 2626 by asmeurer: Piecewise should use a different
syntax for otherwise
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2626
I've started to fix this in my piecewise-syntax branch. I'll submit it as
a pull request when it's all ready.
Updates:
Cc: ness...@googlemail.com
Comment #8 on issue 2626 by asmeurer: Piecewise should use a different
syntax for otherwise
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2626
I need to implement Piecewise._eval_leading_term, which was previously
relying on Function's method
Status: Accepted
Owner: asmeurer
CC: matt...@gmail.com
Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium Printing Polynomial
New issue 2628 by asmeurer: Pretty pint RootSum
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2628
Maple prints its equivalent of RootSum objects as a summation. Here is an
Updates:
Summary: Pretty print RootSum
Comment #1 on issue 2628 by asmeurer: Pretty print RootSum
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2628
That got messed up, probably because I had my terminal full screen and
Maple centers the output. This should be more readable:
Comment #40 on issue 2607 by smi...@gmail.com: as_numer_denom() is too slow
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2607
OK, here's the current results of my work:
I have two modifications in preprocessing: one where just the numerical lcm
is computed and another where that and the
Comment #41 on issue 2607 by asmeurer: as_numer_denom() is too slow
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2607
So simple gcd is the most reliable in speed (at least your 1/Dummy())
test indicates that.
I would try more advanced expressions, too, though. For example, try an
Comment #42 on issue 2607 by smi...@gmail.com: as_numer_denom() is too slow
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2607
I use expand=False with terms_gcd to keep things simple. And the 'simple
gcd' I should have labelled as 'lcm': I give all terms the same leading
coeff so
Comment #43 on issue 2607 by smi...@gmail.com: as_numer_denom() is too slow
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2607
I'm finding that there are too many special things to watch out for.
The approach is sound, I think, but what is going to happen is that I
am just going to end up
Comment #44 on issue 2607 by asmeurer: as_numer_denom() is too slow
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2607
What we need is a way to keep all the flatten info and then just update
that
info as terms are removed.
Exactly. That's what issue 683 is all about, but it's going to
