Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2011-02-16 Thread sympy
Comment #23 on issue 1545 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 The dict representation got merged. Anything else left? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2011-01-06 Thread sympy
Comment #22 on issue 1545 by christian.muise: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 Do you have a test for measuring this performance? If so, could you give this a try: - https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/69 -- You

Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2011-01-04 Thread sympy
Comment #21 on issue 1545 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 to_int_repr still needs to be fixed. Its performance remains horrible -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2010-08-13 Thread sympy
Comment #20 on issue 1545 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 Well, I think Ronan should decide if everything got as efficient as it could in his opinion. -- You received this message because you

Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2010-08-10 Thread sympy
Comment #19 on issue 1545 by christian.muise: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 The current SAT solver uses the more efficient representation, and so does the proposed new sat solver at this branch: -

Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2010-04-01 Thread sympy
Comment #16 on issue 1545 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 Thanks, this is in now. I felt free to add your comment about the test change. I think it's a great idea to use a dict for

Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2010-04-01 Thread sympy
Comment #17 on issue 1545 by christian.muise: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 As far as abstracting the representation into a class goes, I had planned on introducing this when it comes time to speed things up with

Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2010-03-29 Thread sympy
Comment #14 on issue 1545 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 This should be 'raise ValueError(...). I know, your patch does not introduce this, but I just spotted it. :) I'll change it. Would

Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2010-03-28 Thread sympy
Comment #13 on issue 1545 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 +raise ValueError, 'incompatible resolutors' This should be 'raise ValueError(...). I know, your patch does not

Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2010-03-19 Thread sympy
Comment #11 on issue 1545 by christian.muise: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 Bummer, a generic circuit solver would be interesting ;). Has there ever been any discussion on the merits of using an off-the-shelf

Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2010-03-18 Thread sympy
Comment #7 on issue 1545 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 If you think it does make sense, you can split it over several issues. Else we could just rename this one. -- You received this message

Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2010-03-18 Thread sympy
Comment #8 on issue 1545 by christian.muise: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 Well I have just one further question: will the sympy version of DPLL ever go so far as to have clause learning (

Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2009-12-07 Thread sympy
Updates: Cc: Ronan.Lamy Comment #4 on issue 1545 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 Ronan, which of your improvements did not get in? -- You received this message because you are listed in the

Re: Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2009-12-07 Thread sympy
Comment #5 on issue 1545 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 Nothing got in, actually. My patch needs to be thoroughly rewritten to handle internal representation as ints and also to take advantage

Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2009-08-12 Thread codesite-noreply
Updates: Labels: Milestone-Release0.7.0 Comment #2 on issue 1545 by fab...@fseoane.net: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 internal int representation should make ask much faster, since current bottlenecks are in

Issue 1545 in sympy: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable()

2009-07-21 Thread codesite-noreply
Updates: Summary: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() Comment #1 on issue 1545 by fab...@fseoane.net: Efficient data representation in logic.satisfiable() http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1545 (No comment was entered for this change.) -- You received