Comment #6 on issue 2848 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Failing test in
sympy/solvers/test/test_solvers.py
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2848
Narrowing it down further:
clear_cache()
simplify(I*pi)
I*pi
simplify(log(log(-2)) - log(log(2)))
log((log(2) + I*pi)/log(2))
--
You
Comment #7 on issue 2848 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Failing test in
sympy/solvers/test/test_solvers.py
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2848
I can reproduce that, but if I try checking (log(2) + I*pi).is_positive in
the middle of it, it stops breaking:
In [1]: simplify(I*pi)
Ou
Comment #8 on issue 2848 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Failing test in
sympy/solvers/test/test_solvers.py
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2848
Actually, you don't need to restart the session, clearing the cache is
enough, fortunately.
After some single-stepping in WinPdb, I've
Comment #9 on issue 2848 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Failing test in
sympy/solvers/test/test_solvers.py
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2848
I've found a sequence of calls to assumptions that gives a wrong result:
clear_cache()
e = I*pi
e.is_composite
False
e.is_positive
Tru
Comment #10 on issue 2848 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Failing test in
sympy/solvers/test/test_solvers.py
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2848
Mul._eval_is_irrational is the culprit, like in issue 2696. We probably
just need to push Tom's fix in.
--
You received this message b
Comment #3 on issue 2818 by smi...@gmail.com: factor() returns nan
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2818
Also, simply expanding the rewrite allows factor to work. I also note the
following:
The original equation and the rewritten form
>>> p.count_ops(1)
212*ADD +
Comment #11 on issue 2848 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Failing test in
sympy/solvers/test/test_solvers.py
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2848
Where is Tom's fix?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to this gro
Updates:
Labels: -Assumptions -WrongResult
Comment #12 on issue 2848 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Failing test in
sympy/solvers/test/test_solvers.py
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2848
It's in PR #504, I already pushed it in and it does fix the problem - by
making the t
Status: Accepted
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Simplify
New issue 2851 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: logcombine(log(3) - log(2)) does
nothing
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2851
logcombine(log(3) - log(2)) should return log(3/2) but it doesn't. This
used to wor
Comment #13 on issue 2848 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Failing test in
sympy/solvers/test/test_solvers.py
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2848
The logcombine issue is more general, see issue 2851.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"symp
Updates:
Cc: smi...@gmail.com
Comment #1 on issue 2851 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: logcombine(log(3) -
log(2)) does nothing
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2851
Bisected to:
commit 9dc1d111d489624eef3b0c9481c3e6d99cd869e0
Author: Chris Smith
Date: Fri May 20 00:11:41
Comment #2 on issue 2851 by asmeu...@gmail.com: logcombine(log(3) - log(2))
does nothing
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2851
It's because we have:
In [46]: log(S(3)/2)
Out[46]: -log(2) + log(3)
so obviously it's impossible for logcombine to combine them. Perhaps this
sho
Updates:
Status: NeedsDecision
Comment #3 on issue 2851 by asmeu...@gmail.com: logcombine(log(3) - log(2))
does nothing
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2851
By the way, I remember being not sure about this change. Perhaps Chris
will remember where the discussion was
Updates:
Cc: smi...@gmail.com nicolas@gmail.com
Comment #14 on issue 2848 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Failing test in
sympy/solvers/test/test_solvers.py
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2848
I think issue 2851 is a different issue (see my comments there).
If solve calls
Comment #4 on issue 2851 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: logcombine(log(3) -
log(2)) does nothing
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2851
Right, I had forgotten about that, but if you step through the code, you
can see that it doesn't even try to return log(3/2), and there is the same
Comment #5 on issue 2851 by smi...@gmail.com: logcombine(log(3) - log(2))
does nothing
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2851
see also duplicate(?) issue 2709
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to this gro
Comment #6 on issue 2851 by smi...@gmail.com: logcombine(log(3) - log(2))
does nothing
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2851
are you referring to the discussion on issue 2397 ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
Comment #7 on issue 2851 by smi...@gmail.com: logcombine(log(3) - log(2))
does nothing
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2851
To me it seems like `log(x/2)` should autoexpand like `sqrt(4*x)`
2*sqrt(x)
log(x/2)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Go
Comment #8 on issue 2851 by smi...@gmail.com: logcombine(log(3) - log(2))
does nothing
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2851
I don't mind if the autoevaluation goes away, but the logic for it should
not be duplicated (which makes tracking down logic errors difficult). Could
Status: Accepted
Owner: smi...@gmail.com
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 2852 by smi...@gmail.com: is_constant(wrt) is needed
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2852
Although I think I am the one that gave Integral the is_number logic, I
think that is_number should b
Comment #1 on issue 2852 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: is_constant(wrt) is needed
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2852
Sum(x,(x,1,10)).is_number == False is a bug. For the rest, I don't
understand the distinction you're trying to make: evaluating pi is
non-trivial and certainly mu
Comment #3 on issue 2852 by smi...@gmail.com: is_constant(wrt) is needed
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2852
I guess what I mean, then, is that is_number should give confidence in
being able to evalf and not hang because of some undoable entity like
a nasty integral.or sum
--
Y
Comment #2 on issue 2852 by smi...@gmail.com: is_constant(wrt) is needed
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2852
And even if we can't prove that something is zero at least we can know if
it's constant (see last example):
>>> def is_constant(self, *wrt):
... if self.
Comment #4 on issue 2852 by smi...@gmail.com: is_constant(wrt) is needed
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2852
I guess I would rather have None come back for "potentially
unevaluatable" is_number requests. So if a routine can't figure out if
(without doit) that doing doit will suc
24 matches
Mail list logo
