Re: Second quantization with fermionic operators

2009-11-23 Thread Ondrej Certik
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:10 PM, jegerjensen wrote: > Hi, > > I know you guys are busy... But do you have an approximate schedule > for when the patches may go into trunk? > > Ondrej, do you disagree with the previous posts? I agree with previous posts. The patches can go in immediately once some

Re: Second quantization with fermionic operators

2009-11-23 Thread Ondrej Certik
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:10 PM, jegerjensen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I know you guys are busy... But do you have an approximate schedule >> for when the patches may go into trunk? >> >> Ondrej, do you disagree with the previous posts? > > I agre

Re: Second quantization with fermionic operators

2009-11-23 Thread Ondrej Certik
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:10 PM, jegerjensen wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I know you guys are busy... But do you have an approximate schedule >>> for when the patches may go into trunk? >>>

Re: Second quantization with fermionic operators

2009-11-23 Thread Aaron S. Meurer
If the problem was with, Derivative.doit(), it probably had to do with this fix: http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1667&can=1&q=doit&sort=-id Aaron Meurer On Nov 23, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 23, 20

Re: Second quantization with fermionic operators

2009-11-23 Thread Ondrej Certik
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Aaron S. Meurer wrote: > If the problem was with, Derivative.doit(), it probably had to do with this > fix: > http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1667&can=1&q=doit&sort=-id Yes, it's just one or two lines in the doit() method, that have to be debugged

Re: Second quantization with fermionic operators

2009-11-23 Thread Øyvind Jensen
The failed assertion X On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:10 PM, jegerjensen > >> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I know you guys are busy... But do you have an approximate schedule > >>> fo

Re: Second quantization with fermionic operators

2009-11-23 Thread Ondrej Certik
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Øyvind Jensen wrote: > The failed assertion X of the platform-dependent hash, and is not relevant any more. > > It used to be relevant when I tried to use the relation > >        [[A,B],C] + [[C,A],B] + [[B,C],A] = 0 > > to enforce a canonical nesting of commutator