2009/12/1 smichr smi...@gmail.com
I see in the document that using set() is proposed as being a
solution. However, this was the first thing that I tried in issue 1729
and that failed, too.
sympy.polys.rootfinding.roots_quartic
_
File C:\documents
I get True in every case here.
Aaron Meurer
On Nov 30, 2009, at 11:46 PM, smichr wrote:
And here's a strange and perhaps related result. A tests that gave a
False at one point gives a True later:
C:\Documents and Settings\chris\python26\python.exe
Python 2.6.4 (r264:75708, Oct 26 2009,
2009/11/30 Aaron S. Meurer asmeu...@gmail.com
Where are you getting these examples? This one still works the same for me
in both:
import sys
import sympy
sys.maxint
9223372036854775807
x = sympy.Symbol('x')
r = sympy.solve(x**4 - 6*x**3 + 17*x**2 - 26*x + 20, x)
r
[2 + I, 1 +
2009/11/30 Aaron S. Meurer asmeu...@gmail.com
OK, here are some things that work differently in the two platforms:
On 32-bit:
In [6]: print S((C1 + C2*x)*sin(x*sqrt(2)) + (C3 + C4*x)*cos(x*sqrt(2)))
(C1 + C2*x)*sin(x*2**(1/2)) + (C3 + C4*x)*cos(x*2**(1/2))
In [5]: print
I see in the document that using set() is proposed as being a
solution. However, this was the first thing that I tried in issue 1729
and that failed, too.
sympy.polys.rootfinding.roots_quartic
_
File C:\documents and settings\chris\sympy\sympy\polys
And here's a strange and perhaps related result. A tests that gave a
False at one point gives a True later:
C:\Documents and Settings\chris\python26\python.exe
Python 2.6.4 (r264:75708, Oct 26 2009, 08:23:19) [MSC v.1500 32 bit
(Intel)] on
win32
Type help, copyright, credits or license for more
I now took a real-world example from sympy.
Vinzent
2009/11/28 Aaron S. Meurer asmeu...@gmail.com
It seems that the example you provide actually runs the same in both 64-bit
and 32-bit. Here is maybe a better one:
On 64-bit:
(sin(x) + cos(x)).args
(cos(x), sin(x))
On 32-bit:
(sin(x)
2009/11/29 Ronan Lamy ronan.l...@gmail.com
On 32-bit, you've merely replaced one failure with another - so it's
maybe not such a good exemple.
Sorry, should be fixed now.
Vinzent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy-patches group.
To post to
I like the patch. If all tests pass, let's put it in.
Ondrej
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Aaron S. Meurer asmeu...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, here are some things that work differently in the two platforms:
On 32-bit:
In [6]: print S((C1 + C2*x)*sin(x*sqrt(2)) + (C3 + C4*x)*cos(x*sqrt(2)))
(C1
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy-patches group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy-patc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sympy-patches+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group
It seems that the example you provide actually runs the same in both 64-bit and
32-bit. Here is maybe a better one:
On 64-bit:
(sin(x) + cos(x)).args
(cos(x), sin(x))
On 32-bit:
(sin(x) + cos(x)).args
(sin(x), cos(x))
Note that this expression prints as cos(x) + sin(x) in both. I am having
11 matches
Mail list logo
