Christian Muise wrote:
I see, so I'm +1 on this patch.
Probably best to still get Fabian's input -- I haven't contributed to
sympy before now so there may be some "bigger picture" issues that I'm
failing to see.
Hi!
Your patch seems fine, and I'm all for expanding the Implies to an
equivalent Or. I think the reason to have an 'unexpanded' Implies was
performance: we store it as a class and expand it as needed with
eliminate_implications, but I do not know if this is really worth.
Just make sure the function eliminate_implications works as expected (or
maybe we could now delete this function ?).
Thanks
fabian
Is there an advantage of having all in negation normal form?
For querying the theory? Not unless P=NP. But for transformations,
many things are polynomial in the size of the NNF (conditioning,
existentially quantifying over a single variable, conjunctions,
disjunctions, negation, etc). [1]
Some of these are currently employed, and others may be useful in the
future (eg. with the assumptions module).
Cheers,
Christian
[1]: *http://tinyurl.com/y9ecwv8*
Vinzent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "sympy-patches" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy-patches@googlegroups.com
<mailto:sympy-patches@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sympy-patches+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:sympy-patches%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy-patches?hl=en.
--
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 at
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy-patches?hl=en.
