Issue 2824 in sympy: Quantum functions should all sympify their arguments

Status: Accepted Owner: Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium CodeInCategory-Code CodeInDifficulty-Easy Quantum New issue 2824 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Quantum functions should all sympify their arguments http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2824 See

Re: Issue 2813 in sympy: solve(x**2 - x - 0.1) doesn't give both solutions

Comment #4 on issue 2813 by smi...@gmail.com: solve(x**2 - x - 0.1) doesn't give both solutions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2813 The only way to get this single solution now is to explicitly say that you don't want solve to work in Rationals: ```python @XFAIL def

Re: Issue 2312 in sympy: Remove duplicated block_diag

Updates: Labels: NeedsReview Comment #10 on issue 2312 by vlada.pe...@gmail.com: Remove duplicated block_diag http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2312 https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/697 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Issue 2825 in sympy: Numerical Approximation to Challenging Integrals

Status: Accepted Owner: Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium Integration New issue 2825 by mrock...@gmail.com: Numerical Approximation to Challenging Integrals http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2825 Some integrals do not have easily computable analytic forms. We don't

Re: Issue 2825 in sympy: Numerical Approximation to Challenging Integrals

Updates: Status: Invalid Comment #1 on issue 2825 by matt...@gmail.com: Numerical Approximation to Challenging Integrals http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2825 evalf() uses mpmath's numerical integration routines and also implements `quad` argument which allows you to

Re: Issue 2736 in sympy: ode_order failure with Derivative(x*f(x),x)

Updates: Labels: NeedsReview Comment #2 on issue 2736 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: ode_order failure with Derivative(x*f(x),x) http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2736 There's a PR for this: https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/698 -- You received this message because you are

Re: Issue 2312 in sympy: Remove duplicated block_diag

Updates: Status: Fixed Labels: -NeedsReview PassedReview Comment #11 on issue 2312 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Remove duplicated block_diag http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2312 This was merged. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Issue 2570 in sympy: Remove bare except statements

Updates: Labels: CodeInCategory-Code CodeInDifficulty-Easy Comment #3 on issue 2570 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Remove bare except statements http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2570 (No comment was entered for this change.) -- You received this message because you are

Re: Issue 2824 in sympy: Quantum functions should all sympify their arguments

Updates: Labels: smichr NeedsReview Comment #1 on issue 2824 by smi...@gmail.com: Quantum functions should all sympify their arguments http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2824 see https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/699 -- You received this message because you are

Re: Issue 2819 in sympy: simplify(sqrt(x**2)) does not yield x

Comment #2 on issue 2819 by smi...@gmail.com: simplify(sqrt(x**2)) does not yield x http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2819 But the old assumptions work: var('x',positive=True) x sqrt(x**2) x -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Issue 2811 in sympy: Make (1/(1 - t)).subs(t, 1) return -oo instead of oo

Comment #1 on issue 2811 by smi...@gmail.com: Make (1/(1 - t)).subs(t, 1) return -oo instead of oo http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2811 It would be preferable, IMO, to have 1/(1-t) return oo since t/(1-t) nicely parameterizes the range x = [0, oo] to t = [0, 1] with the

Re: Issue 2805 in sympy: Should unevaluated objects still sort their args?

Comment #1 on issue 2805 by smi...@gmail.com: Should unevaluated objects still sort their args? http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2805 Since this doesn't affect the printing, my hunch is it would be better to sort them. That way, if you didn't create any new factors in a

Re: Issue 2813 in sympy: solve(x**2 - x - 0.1) doesn't give both solutions

Updates: Labels: NeedsReview smichr Comment #5 on issue 2813 by smi...@gmail.com: solve(x**2 - x - 0.1) doesn't give both solutions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2813 (No comment was entered for this change.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: Issue 2818 in sympy: factor() returns nan

Comment #2 on issue 2818 by smi...@gmail.com: factor() returns nan http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2818 Try apply terms_gcd first (or as_content_primitive) to help it: cse(factor(terms_gcd(p.rewrite(exp ([(x0, dq3**2), (x1, dq2**2), (x2, dq4**2), (x3, I*ddq3), (x4, I*q3),

Re: Issue 2814 in sympy: ValueError: can't raise polynomial to a negative power with solve()

Comment #1 on issue 2814 by smi...@gmail.com: ValueError: can't raise polynomial to a negative power with solve() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2814 from sympy.solvers.solvers import _tsolve _tsolve(((x - 1.1)/(x + 0.1))**(0.83) - C*exp(t), x)

Re: Issue 849 in sympy: .expand(ratio=True)

Updates: Labels: NeedsReview smichr Comment #1 on issue 849 by smi...@gmail.com: .expand(ratio=True) http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=849 In keeping with polys, the hint is 'frac': https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/700 -- You received this message because you are

Re: Issue 2820 in sympy: expand() doesn't work in the denominator

Updates: Labels: NeedsReview smichr Comment #2 on issue 2820 by smi...@gmail.com: expand() doesn't work in the denominator http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2820 https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/700 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the