Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Comment #22 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 I must be forgetting to put in the minus sign when I do the test. I'll make the change and repush. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Issue 2092 in sympy: solve4linearsymbol should be hidden or fixed

Comment #3 on issue 2092 by smichr: solve4linearsymbol should be hidden or fixed http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2092 Thanks for the additions, Aaron. I'll try to remember to put those on in the future. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Comment #21 on issue 2084 by asmeurer: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 This is the pull request: https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/29 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To

Re: Issue 2092 in sympy: solve4linearsymbol should be hidden or fixed

Comment #2 on issue 2092 by asmeurer: solve4linearsymbol should be hidden or fixed http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2092 https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/27 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To post to this

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Comment #20 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 (Sorry, previous comment deleted... this was not the right example.) "limit(r**(-Rational(1,2)), r, 0, '-') would then be oo not I*oo, right?" No, once agai

Re: Issue 2095 in sympy: Ana Flores solution for quartic equation is broken

Comment #2 on issue 2095 by asmeurer: Ana Flores solution for quartic equation is broken http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2095 https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/26 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To post to

Re: Issue 2080 in sympy: WildFunction needs to reference Dummy.dummycount not Symbol.dummycount

Comment #2 on issue 2080 by asmeurer: WildFunction needs to reference Dummy.dummycount not Symbol.dummycount http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2080 You should make a note of them here. Also, don't forget to add a link to, or at least a reference to the number of the pull requ

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Comment #19 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 "limit(r**(-Rational(1,2)), r, 0, '-') would then be oo not I*oo, right?" No, once again, this doesn't change anything: (-.0001)**(S(1)/2) # -.0001

Re: Issue 1923 in sympy: count_ops doesn't return a count (by default)

Comment #26 on issue 1923 by asmeurer: count_ops doesn't return a count (by default) http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1923 It's https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/23, by the way. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" gro

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Comment #18 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 I'm not sure about adding all the tests. Tests should test coverage and assert behavior that shouldn't change. They aren't all needed for coverage. They do assert what

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Updates: Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview Comment #17 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 Chris, I rebased your 2 commits and my patch. I also added your quite exhaustive test suggestion. The

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Comment #16 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 On my 2084 branch (with the patch I attached previously): x**(-2) dir= - = oo x**(-2) dir= + = oo x**(-3) dir= - = -oo x**(-3) dir= + = oo x**(-1/2) dir= - =

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Updates: Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch Comment #15 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 "What about positive rationals from the left? Does this now look right? x**(1/2) dir= - = zoo ... x**(

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Comment #14 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 I'll add the tests tonight or tomorrow. var('x') from sympy.utilities.iterables import cartes for args in cartes([-1,1],[2,3,Rational(1,2),Rational(2,3)],['-', '+']):

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Updates: Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview Comment #13 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 What about positive rationals from the left? Does this now look right? x**(1/2) dir= - = zoo x**(1/2) dir= + = 0 x**

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Comment #12 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 I think x**0 is already automatically converted to 1 by sympy, isn't it ? x**0 1 So, computing limit(x**0, x, 0) results in limit(1, x, 0), not matter w

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Comment #11 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 but x**0 should be 1 no matter what, shouldn't it? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To post to this gro

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Comment #10 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 A cleaner version to illustrate what I meant (I didn't adapt tests). Attachments: 0001-second-Pow-issue-try.patch 1.3 KB -- You received this messa

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Updates: Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch Comment #9 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 Two comments: 1) About 1/x**(p/q) with x<0: gruntz(1/x**Rational(3,2),x,0,dir='-') oo*I limit(1/x*

[GitHub] 2084 [sympy/sympy GH-29]

smichr wants someone to pull from smichr:2084: These commits fix errors with evaluating limits from the negative direction (see issue 2084). View Pull Request: https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/29 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" g

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Updates: Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview Comment #8 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 This was a separate but related issue: a Pow instead of an Add. Added a new commit to 2084. -- You received this mes

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Comment #7 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 This is caused by the following bug (in master too) : limit(1/x**2,x,0,dir='-') -oo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Updates: Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch Comment #6 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 Hmm, I spoke to quickly: limit(x+1/x,x,0,dir='-') -oo # ok limit(1/x**2+1/x,x,0,dir='-') -oo # wro

[GitHub] 2003 [sympy/sympy GH-28]

smichr wants someone to pull from smichr:2003: Just sending a new pull request after having reforked from sympy rather than ondrej's repo. View Pull Request: https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/28 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" gro

Re: Issue 2092 in sympy: solve4linearsymbol should be hidden or fixed

Updates: Labels: NeedsReview smichr Comment #1 on issue 2092 by smichr: solve4linearsymbol should be hidden or fixed http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2092 A pull request has been made. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy

[GitHub] 2092 [sympy/sympy GH-27]

smichr wants someone to pull from smichr:2092: A fix to uncovered and potentially broken code was made and a re-writing of the solve4linear symbols function as described in the commit message. (This function will be of use in solving systems of equations where most of the equations are linear.

Re: Issue 2084 in sympy: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails

Comment #5 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 I think it's ok. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To post to this group, send email to sym

Re: Issue 2095 in sympy: Ana Flores solution for quartic equation is broken

Updates: Labels: NeedsReview smichr Comment #1 on issue 2095 by smichr: Ana Flores solution for quartic equation is broken http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2095 A pull request has been made for this issue. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

[GitHub] 2095 [sympy/sympy GH-26]

smichr wants someone to pull from smichr:2095: solutions to x**4 + x**3 + x**2 - 3*x + 9 will be correct after applying this patch: Master: h[5] >>> eq = x**4 + x**3 + x**2 - 3*x + 9 h[5] >>> [eq.subs(x, a).n(1) for a in solve(x**4 + x**3 + x**2 - 3*x + 9)] [-5.0 - 9.0*I, -5.0 + 9.0*I, 8.0 + 6.0

Re: Issue 2080 in sympy: WildFunction needs to reference Dummy.dummycount not Symbol.dummycount

Updates: Labels: smichr Comment #1 on issue 2080 by smichr: WildFunction needs to reference Dummy.dummycount not Symbol.dummycount http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2080 A pull request has now been made for this issue. It's a very short patch and quick review. Should

[GitHub] 2080 [sympy/sympy GH-25]

smichr wants someone to pull from smichr:2080: small patch to previously uncovered and broken code. View Pull Request: https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/25 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To post to this group, send email to

Re: Issue 1923 in sympy: count_ops doesn't return a count (by default)

Comment #25 on issue 1923 by smichr: count_ops doesn't return a count (by default) http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1923 A pull request for the 1923 (not 1694) portion of this issue has been made. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "s

[GitHub] Subsets [sympy/sympy GH-24]

smichr wants someone to pull from smichr:subsets: For ease of use, subsets(seq) will now yield all 2**n - 1 subsets of length 1 through len(seq) for the iterable given to subsets: subsets([1,2]) -> [1], [2], [1,2] Previously one would have to set up a loop to do this. Should the null set [] be

[GitHub] 1923 [sympy/sympy GH-23]

smichr wants someone to pull from smichr:1923: These are the modifications of count ops to make it more usable, especially for issue 1694. One question I have is about whether there should be a count_ops in basic. It never gets called. Ronan is probably the best person to answer this, but if a