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

Status: Accepted Owner: smichr Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium NeedsReview New issue 2080 by smichr: WildFunction needs to reference Dummy.dummycount not Symbol.dummycount http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2080 tiny patch at github/smichr/2080 -- You received this message

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #146 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 I'm trying to complete coverage tests for powdenest in 1694 and the current work is in 1694cov; I think everything is looking ok. Personally, I don't li

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #147 on issue 1694 by nicolas.pourcelot: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 Thanks Chris. That's a detail, but I think powdenest() arguments should be renamed to match those of similar existing functions : logcombine

Re: Issue 345 in sympy: implement _sage_ methods

Updates: Status: Accepted Labels: crisjss NeedsReview Comment #3 on issue 345 by asmeurer: implement _sage_ methods http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=345 (No comment was entered for this change.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: Issue 345 in sympy: implement _sage_ methods

Comment #4 on issue 345 by ondrej.certik: implement _sage_ methods http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=345 Cristóvão, can you please send us a pull request to the sympy/sympy repo at github? Implement the _sage_ method and add test to sympy/test_external/test_sage.py. -- You

Re: Issue 345 in sympy: implement _sage_ methods

Comment #5 on issue 345 by ondrej.certik: implement _sage_ methods http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=345 See here for more info: http://sympy.org/development.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To po

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #148 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 yes, they should be made the same. Since to be positive is to be real I think the assume_pos_real can just be shortened to assume_postive: h[1] >>&g

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #149 on issue 1694 by nicolas.pourcelot: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 +1 Let's change it to logcombine(expr, assume_positive=False) and powdenest(expr, assume_positive=False) (I prefer 'expr' than '

Re: Issue 345 in sympy: implement _sage_ methods

Comment #6 on issue 345 by crisjss: implement _sage_ methods http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=345 OK, I'll do it as soon as possible. Thanks a lot. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To post to t

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #150 on issue 1694 by asmeurer: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 No, that is wrong. The positive and real are referring to different things. For a*log(x) == log(x**a) to be correct, a must be real, but for log(x) + log(y) to

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #151 on issue 1694 by nicolas.pourcelot: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 So, "all symbols are positive" is a sufficient condition (while not necessary). I mean, if 'a', 'x' and 'y'

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #152 on issue 1694 by asmeurer: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 Well, if you look at the code for logcombine(), it is specifically checking for positive/real terms. I think I already suggested renaming it to algebraic=True

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #153 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 I think in t2 I eventually called it "symbolic" since that's how you've referred to it elsewhere. But everything is symbolic so that's proba

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #154 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 'lax' rolls off the fingers pretty nicely and has the definition "lacking in rigor or strictness". How about that? -- You received this mes

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #155 on issue 1694 by nicolas.pourcelot: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 As a non-native English speaker, I would say that 'force' is a (much?) more common word (I didn't know what 'lax' means befor

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #156 on issue 1694 by Vinzent.Steinberg: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 'lax' is also a german word, meaning essentially the same as in English. It's somewhat uncommon though. I'd prefer 'force

Issue 2086 in sympy: SympifyError should be more explicit

Status: Started Owner: nicolas.pourcelot CC: ondrej.certik Labels: Type-Enhancement Priority-Medium NeedsReview New issue 2086 by nicolas.pourcelot: SympifyError should be more explicit http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086 When a SympifyError occurs inside a program, the message

Re: Issue 2086 in sympy: SympifyError should be more explicit

Updates: Labels: nicolas.pourcelot Comment #1 on issue 2086 by asmeurer: SympifyError should be more explicit http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086 (No comment was entered for this change.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Issue 2086 in sympy: SympifyError should be more explicit

Updates: Status: Fixed Labels: -NeedsReview -nicolas.pourcelot PassedReview Comment #2 on issue 2086 by asmeurer: SympifyError should be more explicit http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086 It's in. -- You received this message because you are subscribed t

Re: Issue 2086 in sympy: SympifyError should be more explicit

Comment #3 on issue 2086 by smichr: SympifyError should be more explicit http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086 When things get pushed in so quickly there's no time for feedback. Is there a reason to show what it eventually got translated to instead of the original expre

Re: Issue 2086 in sympy: SympifyError should be more explicit

Comment #4 on issue 2086 by asmeurer: SympifyError should be more explicit http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086 I don't think it works that way. If it fails, it fails, without any mention of why. Or am I wrong? -- You received this message because you are subscribed t

Re: Issue 2086 in sympy: SympifyError should be more explicit

Comment #5 on issue 2086 by nicolas.pourcelot: SympifyError should be more explicit http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086 "When things get pushed in so quickly there's no time for feedback." From http://code.google.com/p/sympy/wiki/SympyDevelopment: "We

Re: Issue 2086 in sympy: SympifyError should be more explicit

Comment #6 on issue 2086 by Vinzent.Steinberg: SympifyError should be more explicit http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086 I agree with Nicolas. There is an unwritten rule that you usually wait 24 hours before pushing in non-trivial changes, but this does not apply to

Re: Issue 2086 in sympy: SympifyError should be more explicit

Comment #7 on issue 2086 by asmeurer: SympifyError should be more explicit http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2086 Well, the reason that I pushed it in so soon was that I had 10 minutes free and I knew that I could review and push this simple patch in that time. If I had

Re: Issue 1942 in sympy: Refactor the singleton mechanism

Comment #4 on issue 1942 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Refactor the singleton mechanism http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1942 I had the wrong idea earlier. Being a Singleton is clearly a property of the class, not of the instance: S.One should behave the same whether it&#

Re: Issue 2009 in sympy: Document why solve((x-y,y),x) is None

Comment #14 on issue 2009 by torstenm...@googlemail.com: Document why solve((x-y,y),x) is None http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2009 Sorry for the answer taking so much time. An iterable for multiple variables would use the ordering given the silverstone call. Could you

Re: Issue 2014 in sympy: sympy.solvers.solvers.solve should also allow frozenset to hold equations

Comment #9 on issue 2014 by torstenm...@googlemail.com: sympy.solvers.solvers.solve should also allow frozenset to hold equations http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2014 As no one disagreed, I prepare a combined patch for allowing all iterables and removing TypeError for the

Re: Issue 2009 in sympy: Document why solve((x-y,y),x) is None

Comment #15 on issue 2009 by torstenm...@googlemail.com: Document why solve((x-y,y),x) is None http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2009 Rebased patch to current origin master. Attachments: 2009.diff 1.1 KB 2009.test 23.7 KB -- You received this message because

Re: Issue 2014 in sympy: sympy.solvers.solvers.solve should also allow frozenset to hold equations

Comment #10 on issue 2014 by torstenm...@googlemail.com: sympy.solvers.solvers.solve should also allow frozenset to hold equations http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2014 ChangeLog: - Rebased patch to current origin master - Converted doctests to regular tesets - Removed "

Re: Issue 2009 in sympy: Document why solve((x-y,y),x) is None

Comment #16 on issue 2009 by asmeurer: Document why solve((x-y,y),x) is None http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2009 What is silverstone? I think I understand what you are saying, and if so, I would prefer a dictionary ({variable:solution}). Here is the roots style: In [47

Re: Issue 2014 in sympy: sympy.solvers.solvers.solve should also allow frozenset to hold equations

Updates: Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch NeedsReview torstenmarcoknodt Comment #11 on issue 2014 by asmeurer: sympy.solvers.solvers.solve should also allow frozenset to hold equations http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2014 (No comment was entered for this change.) -- You

Re: Issue 2009 in sympy: Document why solve((x-y,y),x) is None

Comment #17 on issue 2009 by torstenm...@googlemail.com: Document why solve((x-y,y),x) is None http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2009 Sorry, for the "silverstone". It was a greeting from the T9 on my cell phone. An iterable for multiple variables would use th

Re: Issue 2014 in sympy: sympy.solvers.solvers.solve should also allow frozenset to hold equations

Comment #12 on issue 2014 by smichr: sympy.solvers.solvers.solve should also allow frozenset to hold equations http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2014 I'm +1/2 with comments below. I have often thought that listing all iterable types was kind of a clunky way to tes

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

Updates: Labels: NeedsReview smichr Blockedon: -2096 Comment #4 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 Please consider the following branch which has a minor modification of limit that gives t

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 G

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 r

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

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

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

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

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 subs

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 rec

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='-&#

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 -- Yo

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&quo

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,

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) di

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,R

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

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**

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 sugges

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 covera

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 &quo

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 chang

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

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" grou

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 no

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 po

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

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 G

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 su

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

Comment #23 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 As of today, the code in the pull request is incorrect, because of the wrong special case of 'z being a real'. Chris, do you agree with

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

Comment #24 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 (By the way, is there a clean and easy way to make an hyperlink which refers to a comment, the same way we does for an issue ??) -- You rec

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

Comment #25 on issue 2084 by asmeurer: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 I don't think Google Code autolinks those like it does issues (see the bottom of http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/WhatsNew). Usually, people ju

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

Comment #26 on issue 2084 by Vinzent.Steinberg: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 It can be shorter: http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084#c17 but not as short as "issue 2084". -- You received this mes

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

Comment #27 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 issue2084#c17 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To post to this group, send

Re: Issue 2101 in sympy: latex printing with piecewise function : reversed expr and cond

Updates: Status: Accepted Labels: NeedsBetterPatch Maurice.Bremond Printing Comment #1 on issue 2101 by asmeurer: latex printing with piecewise function : reversed expr and cond http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2101 If I try compiling \\begin{cases} x & \\

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

Updates: Status: Fixed Labels: -NeedsReview PassedReview Comment #3 on issue 2095 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Ana Flores solution for quartic equation is broken http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2095 It's in. -- You received this message because you are subsc

Re: Issue 1863 in sympy: nonlinear solver example stopped working

Comment #8 on issue 1863 by smichr: nonlinear solver example stopped working http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1863 Mods of issue 1694 also give: solve([f_1, f_2, f_3], x, y, z) [(-1 - 2**(1/2), -1 - 2**(1/2), 2 + 2**(1/2) - (1 + 2**(1/2))**2), (0, 0, 1), (0, 1, 0), (-1 + 2

Re: Issue 1863 in sympy: nonlinear solver example stopped working

Comment #9 on issue 1863 by mattpap: nonlinear solver example stopped working http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1863 But we definitely need to get the new polys in place. Perhaps during winter break we can get this in? Yeah, this should be finally done. Currently I'

Re: Issue 2101 in sympy: latex printing with piecewise function : reversed expr and cond

Comment #2 on issue 2101 by Maurice.Bremond: latex printing with piecewise function : reversed expr and cond http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2101 If I try compiling \\begin{cases} x & \\text{for}\\: x < 0 0 & \\text{for}\\: 0 \\leq x \\end{cases}, I get

Re: Issue 1915 in sympy: Unify make_list with as_Add/as_Mul

Comment #10 on issue 1915 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Unify make_list with as_Add/as_Mul http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1915 I think I've found a better name: "make_args". "Add.make_args(expr)" seems reasonably clear to me, or at least clearer than

Re: Issue 1915 in sympy: Unify make_list with as_Add/as_Mul

Comment #11 on issue 1915 by Vinzent.Steinberg: Unify make_list with as_Add/as_Mul http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1915 Should we also refactor things like e.rewrite(exp) for consistency? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "

Re: Issue 1915 in sympy: Unify make_list with as_Add/as_Mul

Comment #12 on issue 1915 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Unify make_list with as_Add/as_Mul http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1915 I'm not sure how to refactor e.rewrite(exp), but it works quite differently from the functions discussed here (it returns an expression that con

Re: Issue 1960 in sympy: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str?

Comment #7 on issue 1960 by smichr: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str? http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960 Just as getting an integral sign rather than the word Integral is prettier, so is getting the conventional coordinate representation of a Point

Re: Issue 1960 in sympy: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str?

Comment #8 on issue 1960 by Vinzent.Steinberg: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str? http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960 Well, I'm not sure. The integral sign is unambiguous, whereas a tuple is not. For example (1, 2) could be a point, a vect

Re: Issue 1960 in sympy: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str?

Comment #9 on issue 1960 by smichr: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str? http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960 This patch is not addressing the pprint issue. pprint'ing without this patch in master gives the Point'less representation, so p

Re: Issue 1936 in sympy: Integral limits should be sanitized

Issue 1936: Integral limits should be sanitized http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1936 This issue is now blocking issue 1694. See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC fields of this issue, or

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Updates: Labels: NeedsReview Blockedon: 1923 1936 1987 Comment #163 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 OK, I've pulled out the multi-equation handling and added only a little tsolve mat

Re: Issue 1987 in sympy: Integral(f(x), (x, g(x), h(x))).diff(x) incorrectly returns 0

Issue 1987: Integral(f(x), (x, g(x), h(x))).diff(x) incorrectly returns 0 http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1987 This issue is now blocking issue 1694. See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC

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

Issue 1923: count_ops doesn't return a count (by default) http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1923 This issue is now blocking issue 1694. See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 -- You received this message because you are listed in the owner or CC fields of

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #164 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 I'll put a pull request in later today. For now it is at github/smichr branch 1694. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G

Re: Issue 1960 in sympy: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str?

Updates: Labels: -PassedReview NeedsBetterPatch Comment #10 on issue 1960 by Vinzent.Steinberg: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str? http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960 There is a problem: srepr(Line(Point(2, 2), Point(0, 10)).intersection(Line

Re: Issue 1960 in sympy: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str?

Comment #11 on issue 1960 by asmeurer: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str? http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960 Wait, why is ok to break repr() but not srepr()? Actually, I'm not sure I really understand the subtle difference between the two. -

Re: Issue 1960 in sympy: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str?

Comment #12 on issue 1960 by Vinzent.Steinberg: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str? http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960 I think in sympy we have repr() == str(), because str([...]) uses repr() to print all elements inside the list, which is usually

Re: Issue 1960 in sympy: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str?

Comment #13 on issue 1960 by asmeurer: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str? http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960 I see. I didn't realize that str(list) used repr(). By the way, that reminds me that we still have that srepr(sqrt(x)) == Pow(Symb

Re: Issue 1960 in sympy: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str?

Comment #14 on issue 1960 by asmeurer: should repr form of geometry entities be the same as str? http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1960 Actually, it's issue 1348, and Mateusz fixed it in his polys branch (af4c122689a31a1e8546b9bb73bbcb03578c6ada). -- You received

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #165 on issue 1694 by nicolas.pourcelot: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 "Labels: NeedsReview Blockedon: 1923 1936 1987" I don't understand: is this blocked by new issues, or do you mean that you also fixed

Re: Issue 1694 in sympy: solve has many issues with fractions

Comment #166 on issue 1694 by smichr: solve has many issues with fractions http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1694 1923 is the count_ops and that is used by the routine The integral issues arose while working on this and I already had fixes for those in the other two issues. If

Re: Issue 2043 in sympy: log should not expand(1/x) (was "expand log can be more complete" and "logcombine can be less strict")

Issue 2043: log should not expand(1/x) (was "expand log can be more complete" and "logcombine can be less strict") http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2043 This issue is now blocking issue 2113. See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2113 -- You r

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

Updates: Labels: Milestone-Release0.7.0 Comment #28 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 The patch (attached with comment 17) is not very long to review... so I think this could reasonab

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

Comment #29 on issue 2084 by asmeurer: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 If you can send a patch as a pull request in GitHub, it will greatly increase its chances of being reviewed. -- You received this message because you are

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

Comment #30 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 read http://help.github.com/pull-requests/, and this seems quite easy. Thanks for your advice. -- You received this message because you are sub

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

Comment #31 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 Nicolas, I fixed the issue of comment 20 in response to someone commenting on the commit and put in a pull request. I don't care which version goes in (

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

Updates: Labels: nicolas.pourcelot Comment #32 on issue 2084 by asmeurer: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 Since you both have worked on a patch, can you both review each other's work and make sure that the one p

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

Comment #33 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 I like how mine is factored better. I'm not sure that all the tests are necessary (as raised in comment 18) and I fix a typo in another test, too. -- Yo

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

Comment #34 on issue 2084 by smichr: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 2084 now has 100% coverage, too. In comparing the two commits I saw that 2084 imported but did not use zoo while the other did not import it. I added a test

Re: Issue 1731 in sympy: fraction can be more flexible

Comment #13 on issue 1731 by smichr: fraction can be more flexible http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1731 The big difference between fraction and as_numer_denom is that fraction just gives the naive numer/denom fraction(x/(1+1/b)) -> (x, 1 + 1/b) whereas as_numer_denom gi

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

Comment #35 on issue 2084 by nicolas.pourcelot: limit(1+1/x, x, 0, dir='-') fails http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2084 "Nicolas, I fixed the issue of comment 20 in response to someone commenting on the commit and put in a pull request." Actually, it w

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

Comment #36 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 finished reviewing it. It's almost ok for me. The most important tests are in, imo. The only remaining issue is this 1/0 == oo prob

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >