Status: Accepted
Owner: smichr
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 2044 by smichr: log(exp(x)) != x unless x is real
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2044
I see the following comment in the code or exponential.py:
+#this doesn't work due to caching: :(
+
Updates:
Cc: ondrej.certik
Comment #1 on issue 2044 by asmeurer: log(exp(x)) != x unless x is real
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2044
I'm guessing limits need to have real assumptions (since the limits
themselves are real), but Ondrej would know the best.
By the way
Comment #2 on issue 2044 by smichr: log(exp(x)) != x unless x is real
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2044
yes, uncommenting that line makes the true conditions for simplification
apply and then the code breaks.
Again, here is a perfect place for symbols to be used intelligen
Comment #3 on issue 2044 by asmeurer: log(exp(x)) != x unless x is real
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2044
Well, the last time I made a change that broke something in the limits
(prevention of automatic combination of exp(x)*exp(y) => exp(x + y)), I had
to write a custom si
Comment #4 on issue 2044 by smichr: log(exp(x)) != x unless x is real
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2044
It could be something like iknowwhatimdoing_funcdenest?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to this
Comment #5 on issue 2044 by asmeurer: log(exp(x)) != x unless x is real
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2044
Well, in UNIX lingo that would be sudo_funcdenest() :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to this
Comment #6 on issue 2044 by smichr: log(exp(x)) != x unless x is real
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2044
OK, commit github/smichr/t2/2044 has sympy passing tests without breaking
the log rule...at least at that point in the code.
--
You received this message because you are
Updates:
Labels: NeedsReview smichr
Comment #7 on issue 2044 by smi...@gmail.com: log(exp(x)) != x unless x is
real
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2044
This has been added to [ https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/61 ]
--
You received this message because you are subs
Comment #8 on issue 2044 by smi...@gmail.com: log(exp(x)) != x unless x is
real
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2044
Aaron, could you review this at
[
https://github.com/smichr/sympy/commit/a2fd6b9381bca6c7886190eacc9a2e06927a7c1d
]
--
You received this message because y
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #9 on issue 2044 by asmeurer: log(exp(x)) != x unless x is real
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2044
The changes look fine, but this is tied up with other commits (or have they
already been reviewed?), and it isn't
Comment #10 on issue 2044 by smi...@gmail.com: log(exp(x)) != x unless x is
real
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2044
Yes, they are more significantly blocked than the last one that Nicolas
pushed.
I just marked this with a +-prefix. When the others are reviewed up to that
Comment #11 on issue 2044 by smi...@gmail.com: log(exp(x)) != x unless x is
real
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2044
I spent the morning trying to rearrange 2084 (pull/61) to get 2044 and
others appearing first but I can't easily untangle the dependencies...and
when I do
12 matches
Mail list logo