Comment #11 on issue 2531 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Sympy objects for Boolean
values: True, False
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2531
This might be useful regardless, assuming the logic module objects have
nice methods on them, we would want the atoms True and False to have
Comment #2 on issue 3711 by mrock...@gmail.com: probability() should handle
union and intersection of conditions as well as point conditions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3711
Normally one calls integrate with the syntax
integrate(function, (symbol, lower-bound,
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 3715 by t.hi...@gmail.com: ufuncify with logarithms
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3715
ufuncify(x, x*log(10)) produces the following exception
Comment #2 on issue 2152 by rishabhd...@gmail.com: sin, cos, exp, re, im =
[abs]*5 in sympy/assumptions/handlers/sets.py
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2152
I didn't see any use of defining the functions that are just returning only
True/False so I removed all the extra
Comment #1 on issue 3715 by t.hi...@gmail.com: ufuncify with logarithms
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3715
I meant log(10) instead of log(2)
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your
Comment #2 on issue 3715 by t.hi...@gmail.com: ufuncify with logarithms
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3715
This is the fortan file which is generated by the ufuncify/autowrap:
subroutine autofunc(m_18, x_17, y_16)
implicit none
INTEGER*4, intent(in) :: m_18
REAL*8,
Comment #3 on issue 3715 by t.hi...@gmail.com: ufuncify with logarithms
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3715
BTW ufuncify(x, erf(x)) generates this code
subroutine autofunc(m_48, x_47, y_46)
implicit none
INTEGER*4, intent(in) :: m_48
REAL*8, intent(in), dimension(1:m_48)
Comment #4 on issue 3715 by t.hi...@gmail.com: ufuncify with logarithms
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3715
Sry, but my above comment is wrong. It works if there is only one erf in
the expression but does not work if there are more.
--
You received this message because this
Comment #3 on issue 3712 by asmeu...@gmail.com: simplify cancels
inconsistently
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3712
But (x - y)*(4*z - 2) should have a smaller ops count than the original.
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue
Updates:
Status: Valid
Comment #1 on issue 3713 by asmeu...@gmail.com: integrate() not evaluating
the desired final solution
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3713
integrate(exp(-x**2-(n - x)**2), x) and integrate(exp(-2*x**2)*exp( -
n**2)*exp( + 2*n*x), x) also don't
Status: Valid
Owner:
Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium Integration Sets
New issue 3716 by mrock...@gmail.com: Integrals over non-interval sets
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3716
integrate supports the following syntax
integrate(integrand, (symbol, set))
e.g.
Updates:
Blockedon: sympy:3716
Comment #3 on issue 3711 by mrock...@gmail.com: probability() should handle
union and intersection of conditions as well as point conditions
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3711
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received
Issue 3716: Integrals over non-interval sets
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3716
This issue is now blocking issue sympy:3711.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3711
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or
Comment #2 on issue 3716 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Integrals over non-interval
sets
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3716
Wow, I didn't know we could do that.
For integral over a finite set, wouldn't that always be 0? Regardless, we
should allow it.
--
You received this
Comment #3 on issue 3716 by mrock...@gmail.com: Integrals over non-interval
sets
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3716
This comes up in stats. Queries like P(X**2 1) produce an integrand (the
probability density function) and the domain (in this case the union x -1
U x
Comment #4 on issue 3716 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Integrals over non-interval
sets
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3716
Are sets able to rewrite themselves as a union of intervals?
Also, care is needed. Integral(f(x), (x, Union(Interval(a, b), Interval(c,
d))) is not the
Comment #5 on issue 3716 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Integrals over non-interval
sets
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3716
Also, I'm not sure what the mathematically correct thing do to with a delta
function over a finite set is. From the definition I've seen, all integrals
Comment #6 on issue 3716 by mrock...@gmail.com: Integrals over non-interval
sets
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3716
Are sets able to rewrite themselves as a union of intervals?
I don't believe so, no. I think Interval(a, a) is actually transformed
into FiniteSet(a).
Comment #7 on issue 3716 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Integrals over non-interval
sets
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3716
The real issue is that Interval(b, a) represents the empty set when b a
but Integral(f(x), (x, b, a)) = -Integral(f(x), (x, a, b)). The best I can
think
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #1 on issue 3550 by mrock...@gmail.com: patternify() creates broken
objects
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3550
This was the original design. Patternify objects were only meant to be
used internally and were used to circumvent the
Comment #8 on issue 3716 by mrock...@gmail.com: Integrals over non-interval
sets
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3716
I think when using integrate(integrand, (symbol, interval)) you're assuming
the positive case. This case can be clearly selected by using (symbol,
Comment #9 on issue 3716 by asmeu...@gmail.com: Integrals over non-interval
sets
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3716
I mean with a, b, c, and d symbolic. I guess NotImplementedError is ok for
those. It will still solve issue 3711 for explicit inputs.
--
You received this
Status: Started
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium NeedsReview smichr
New issue 3717 by smi...@gmail.com: Factors needs better -1 processing
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=3717
a,b,c=solve(x**3+x**2-7)
solve((x-a)*(x-b)*(x-c))
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
Comment #39 on issue 694 by iurii.de...@gmail.com: Add tests from Review
of CAS mathematical capabilities, by Michael Wester
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=694
Hello!
My patch https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/1934 was not correct.
I changed tabs and make commit in this
24 matches
Mail list logo
