Comment #14 on issue 1823 by smichr: integral.atoms(Symbol) should
introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
This is included in https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/44
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
T
Issue 1823: integral.atoms(Symbol) should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
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, o
Comment #15 on issue 1823 by smi...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
this will go in in 12 hours unless there is an objection; see the commit
1823 at
[ https://github.com/smichr/sympy/tree/push ]
for any final commen
Updates:
Labels: -PassedReview NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #16 on issue 1823 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
Actually, I don't like this approach, though the functionality is needed,
but it's part of
Comment #17 on issue 1823 by asmeurer: integral.atoms(Symbol) should
introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
If we change .atoms(Symbol) to return everything (even dummy variables),
then we will need to add some global .symbols or other to Expr/Basic that
only retu
Comment #18 on issue 1823 by smi...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
Yes, we need a unified approach for boundaries.
We have function and variables now, and this commit adds symbols:
>>> i=Integral(x+3, (x, 1, y))
Comment #19 on issue 1823 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
My point is that there's little semantic difference between i.symbols and
i.variables and that it isn't obvious that i.symbols is i.atoms(Symbol)
Comment #20 on issue 1823 by Vinzent.Steinberg: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
What about "independent_symbols" or "constants"?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
Comment #21 on issue 1823 by jensen.o...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
I would suggest that we should follow common text book terminology if
possible. In the calculus book we used (R.A.Adams: Calculus) the
termino
Comment #22 on issue 1823 by asmeurer: integral.atoms(Symbol) should
introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
My favorites so far are "free_symbols" and "proper_symbols", leaning
slightly toward the second.
"independent_symbols" sounds like the opposite (the ones th
Comment #23 on issue 1823 by smi...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
What about moving in the other direction: make atoms report (via
_eval_atoms) mathematical symbols (not construction atoms) and make a lower
level _
Comment #24 on issue 1823 by jensen.o...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
Another alternative is "bound_symbols" and "free_symbols".
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_variables_and_bound_variables
--
You received th
Comment #25 on issue 1823 by Vinzent.Steinberg: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
I like bound and free (or maybe unbound) too.
Basically it means the same as "dependent"/"independent"
or "variable"/"constant" to me. (All this boi
Comment #26 on issue 1823 by asmeurer: integral.atoms(Symbol) should
introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
OK, given that WIkipedia article, I am now in favor of the ones the Øyvind
gave. So is everyone in agreement that it should be
a = Integral(x*y, (x, 1, 2)
Comment #27 on issue 1823 by Vinzent.Steinberg: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
Free and bound symbols is fine to me.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-patches" group.
To post to
Comment #28 on issue 1823 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
OK for 'free_symbols', but 'bound_symbols' is misleading if there are
nested objects which bind variables as well. For instance,
Integral(Sum(x*
Comment #29 on issue 1823 by smi...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
It just has to introspect, I think. Changes have been made in
[ https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/44 ]. See the final commit and the
early commit ti
Comment #30 on issue 1823 by asmeurer: integral.atoms(Symbol) should
introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
Do we even need "bound_symbols"? I was only suggesting it as a symmetry,
but I don't know if it's necessarily as important as "free_symbols".
Anyway, in
> Do we even need "bound_symbols"?
I think it can be useful for checking what can be done with an
expression, for example if it is desired to manipulate an expression
like this:
n*Sum(x**n, (n, 0, oo)) = n*Sum(x**m, (m, 0, oo)) = Sum(n*x**m,
(m, 0, oo))
If a symbol is present in both free an
> Do we even need "bound_symbols"?
I think it can be useful for checking what can be done with an
expression, for example if it is desired to manipulate an expression
like this:
n*Sum(x**n, (n, 0, oo)) = n*Sum(x**m, (m, 0, oo)) = Sum(n*x**m,
(m, 0, oo))
If a symbol is present in both free an
Comment #31 on issue 1823 by smi...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
bound_symbols has been removed and the commit "free_symbols..." is ready
for review again.
[ https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/44 ]
--
You receiv
Comment #32 on issue 1823 by smi...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
I feel pretty strongly that we should make the symbols method do what
free_symbols is doing and drop the free_symbols method before it even gets
add
Comment #33 on issue 1823 by smi...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
Is there any reason not to just have a symbols method that returns
atoms(Symbol) by default and object-defined free symbols when this is the
correct
Comment #34 on issue 1823 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
The useful sets of symbols are 1) the free variables (i.free_symbols in
#c29) and 2) the integration variables bound by the object (i.variables in
24 matches
Mail list logo
