Status: Valid
Owner:
CC: mario.pe...@gmail.com
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-High
New issue 3628 by smi...@gmail.com: trigsimp introduces extra factor
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3628
In https://github.com/smichr/sympy/pull/25/files I missed two erroneous
results that
Updates:
Status: Started
Comment #1 on issue 3628 by smi...@gmail.com: trigsimp introduces extra
factor
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3628
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Comment #2 on issue 3444 by m.maihui...@gmail.com: Doc for partial fraction
decomp needs expanding
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3444
I think the parameter full determines which algorithm will be chosen for
the partial fraction decomposition, as the code mentions that:
Status: Valid
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Testing
New issue 3629 by asmeu...@gmail.com: ./bin/test --no-subprocess is broken
in Python 3.3
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3629
$./bin/test --no-subprocess
Comment #3 on issue 3444 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Doc for partial fraction
decomp needs expanding
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3444
Yes, except it should be called as apart(x/(x**2 + 1), x, full=True), not
apart(x/(x**2 + 1), x, 1). And add an example showing the
Status: Valid
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Polynomial
New issue 3630 by asmeu...@gmail.com: make doesn't work with the latest
Cython
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3630
$make
python build.py build_ext --inplace
Compiling module sympy.polys.densearith ...
Comment #64 on issue 1047 by mrock...@gmail.com: Suggested new assumption
system
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1047
The context manager was merged so part of this issue is closed. I'd like
to close this issue and reopen several more atomic ones.
--
You received this
Comment #3 on issue 2375 by mrock...@gmail.com: should symbols with the
same name be able to have different assumptions?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2375
In new assumptions this question is fortunately non-sensical. Symbols
don't have assumptions. I would like to
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #7 on issue 2024 by mrock...@gmail.com: Implement 'with' statement
for assumptions.
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2024
Implemented in https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1751
with assuming(Q.real(x)):
... print
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #2 on issue 3450 by mrock...@gmail.com: compute_known_facts
requires copy-paste
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3450
Fixed with the file vi bin/ask_update.py
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Status: Valid
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-High Assumptions
New issue 3631 by mrock...@gmail.com: Migrate from old assumptions to new
assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
What is necessary to remove the old assumptions system?
This issue is here to
Status: Valid
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Assumptions
New issue 3632 by mrock...@gmail.com: New assumptions should be fast
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3632
Old assumptions
In [1]: x = Symbol('x', positive=True)
In [2]: y = Symbol('y', positive=True)
In
Updates:
Blockedon: sympy:3632
Comment #1 on issue 3631 by mrock...@gmail.com: Migrate from old
assumptions to new assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
New assumptions should be fast
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Updates:
Blockedon: sympy:3633
Comment #2 on issue 3631 by mrock...@gmail.com: Migrate from old
assumptions to new assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
Contradictory assumptions should raise an error
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Issue 3633: Contradictory assumptions should raise error
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3633
This issue is now blocking issue sympy:3631.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of
Status: Valid
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Assumptions
New issue 3634 by mrock...@gmail.com: `is_attribute` syntax in core
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3634
Old assumptions queries expressions with syntax like the following
x.is_positive
New
Updates:
Blockedon: sympy:3634
Comment #3 on issue 3631 by mrock...@gmail.com: Migrate from old
assumptions to new assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
`is_attribute` syntax in core
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Issue 3634: `is_attribute` syntax in core
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3634
This issue is now blocking issue sympy:3631.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or
Issue 2721: Relational assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2721
This issue is now blocking issue sympy:3631.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because
Updates:
Blockedon: sympy:2721
Comment #4 on issue 3631 by mrock...@gmail.com: Migrate from old
assumptions to new assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
Relational assumptions
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Updates:
Blockedon: sympy:3635
Comment #5 on issue 3631 by mrock...@gmail.com: Migrate from old
assumptions to new assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
Backwards compatibility with old assumptions
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
Issue 3635: Backwards compatibility with old assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3635
This issue is now blocking issue sympy:3631.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of
Status: Valid
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Assumptions
New issue 3635 by mrock...@gmail.com: Backwards compatibility with old
assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3635
When we move to new assumptions are we going to maintain backwards
compatibility
Status: Valid
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Assumptions
New issue 3636 by mrock...@gmail.com: Several modules depend on the old
assumptions structure
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3636
This is a meta issue. It is used to collect other issues related to
Issue 3636: Several modules depend on the old assumptions structure
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3636
This issue is now blocking issue sympy:3631.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC
Updates:
Blockedon: sympy:3636
Comment #6 on issue 3631 by mrock...@gmail.com: Migrate from old
assumptions to new assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
Several modules depend on the old assumptions structure
--
You received this message because you are
Status: Valid
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Assumptions Statistics
New issue 3637 by mrock...@gmail.com: sympy.stats depends on old_assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3637
in sympy/stats/crv_types.py the methods `_check` all enforce conditions on
Issue 3636: Several modules depend on the old assumptions structure
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3636
This issue is now blocking issue sympy:3637.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3637
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC
Issue 3636: Several modules depend on the old assumptions structure
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3636
This issue is no longer blocking issue sympy:3637.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3637
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or
Issue 3637: sympy.stats depends on old_assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3637
This issue is now blocking issue sympy:3636.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3636
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this
Updates:
Blockedon: sympy:3637
Comment #4 on issue 3636 by mrock...@gmail.com: Several modules depend on
the old assumptions structure
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3636
sympy.stats depends on old_assumptions
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Comment #7 on issue 3631 by mrock...@gmail.com: Migrate from old
assumptions to new assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
Discussion should not occur on this issue.
Please add your comment to the relevant sub-issue.
If the appropriate sub-issue for your comment
Updates:
Status: WontFix
Comment #4 on issue 2375 by asmeu...@gmail.com: should symbols with the
same name be able to have different assumptions?
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2375
Also, we basically already decided on the answer to this for the old
assumptions,
Comment #2 on issue 3632 by asmeu...@gmail.com: New assumptions should be
fast
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3632
How long does it take to develop all the inferences on a single assumption
(for example, after assuming x is positive, determine that it is real)?
Does this
Updates:
Labels: WrongResult
Comment #2 on issue 3633 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Contradictory assumptions
should raise error
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3633
It's this exactly what the DPLL algorithm in the logic module is there to
do? And anyway, the problem is
Comment #2 on issue 3634 by asmeu...@gmail.com: `is_attribute` syntax in
core
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3634
It should be easy to make is_assumption work with the new assumptions.
This would not only prevent a huge backward compatibility break, but is in
my opinion
Comment #2 on issue 3635 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Backwards compatibility
with old assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3635
The only compatibility we need to care about is the API. So things like
Symbol('x', positive=True) and x.is_positive. The latter is easy: just
Comment #3 on issue 3635 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Backwards compatibility
with old assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3635
Another option would be to actually just allow symbols to have assumptions
on them. In other words, the global assumptions are merged with
Comment #5 on issue 3635 by mrock...@gmail.com: Backwards compatibility
with old assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3635
Two thoughts
1. It's attractive to completely separate assumptions from expressions. I
suspect that some magic will cease to be necessary.
Comment #6 on issue 3635 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Backwards compatibility
with old assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3635
By the way, what ever happened with the wrapper idea, where Symbol('x',
positive=True) returns PositiveObject(Symbol, x)? I can't remember what
Issue 2196: Document assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2196
This issue is now blocking issue sympy:3631.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you
Updates:
Blockedon: sympy:2196
Comment #8 on issue 3631 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Migrate from old
assumptions to new assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
A very important thing is issue 2196, Document assumptions. We need to be
very precise about what each
Comment #65 on issue 1047 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Suggested new assumption
system
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1047
Sure, let's close this and use issue 3631. I'll add a note there about
this.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Updates:
Cc: ronan.l...@gmail.com
Comment #9 on issue 3631 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Migrate from old
assumptions to new assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
Issue 1047 has been merged into this issue.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Updates:
Status: Duplicate
Mergedinto: 3631
Comment #66 on issue 1047 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Suggested new assumption
system
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1047
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Comment #10 on issue 3631 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Migrate from old
assumptions to new assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
The old issue for the new assumptions was issue 1047. There's a lot of
discussion there, and a lot of the things discussed are either bad
Updates:
Summary: User-defined assumptions
Comment #6 on issue 348 by asmeu...@gmail.com: User-defined assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=348
Let's not worry about the old assumptions any more. The real question is,
how should things work in the new
Updates:
Blockedon: sympy:348
Comment #11 on issue 3631 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Migrate from old
assumptions to new assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
Just stumbled across an old assumptions issue that brings up another point:
what to do about
Issue 348: User-defined assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=348
This issue is now blocking issue sympy:3631.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because
Comment #8 on issue 348 by asmeu...@gmail.com: User-defined assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=348
I know some people are using the assumptions to define their own
properties on Symbols. Should we continue to allow this? If not, should we
add an easy way to do
Comment #12 on issue 3631 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Migrate from old
assumptions to new assumptions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3631
By the way, who wants to do a scan of all issues tagged Assumptions, and
see how they relate to the new assumptions? As far as I am
Comment #4 on issue 3444 by m.maihui...@gmail.com: Doc for partial fraction
decomp needs expanding
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3444
My PR: https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1773
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy-issues
Comment #1 on issue 3445 by ondrej.c...@gmail.com: Automate the release
process
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3445
Did you succeed in installing Vagrant? Try this repo:
https://github.com/certik/numpy-vendor
and follow the README. It's my fully automated process to
Comment #2 on issue 3445 by ondrej.c...@gmail.com: Automate the release
process
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3445
To get an idea what is involved with NumPy, it needs installers in Python
2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 on Windows (!) with custom installer linked
with
Comment #2 on issue 3083 by rishabhd...@gmail.com: Not is still vectorized
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3083
Is this still a valid issue?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy-issues group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
55 matches
Mail list logo
