Okay then. I'll be on the #sympy Monday night, 10 pm IST.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Sachin Joglekar <srjoglekar...@gmail.com>wrote: > Fine by me. Will enter SymPy room around 22:00 on Monday. > > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Gilbert Gede <gilbertg...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Monday (10:00) for me works. How about we all log onto IRC at that time, >> and decide where to work/discuss then? >> >> -Gilbert >> >> >> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Prasoon Shukla <prasoon92.i...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Monday is good for me. I will be done with the project by Saturday >>> night. Time for the meet doesn't matter mostly for me; I can stay awake >>> late or wake up early according to the time required. Sachin will need to >>> give his opinion on this though. >>> >>> But yes, that particular time suits me quite nicely. >>> (Btw, the time all across India is the same : +5:30 GMT, no daylight >>> savings either) >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Stefan Krastanov < >>> krastanov.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I know that Prasoon still has some academic responsibilities at home. >>>> When he is ready it would be great if the four of us (Gilbert, Prasoon, >>>> Sachin and me) can meet on the mailing list (or maybe a "realtime wiki" >>>> like piratepad.net while we are discussing the api). >>>> >>>> Is Sunday or Monday ok for all of you? The time difference between San >>>> Francisco and India is 12 hours, so it will be somewhat hard to schedule. >>>> What about this: >>>> >>>> - 09:00 or 10:00 in San Francisco (Gilbert) (Is this the correct >>>> timezone?), >>>> >>>> - 18:00 or 19:00 in Brussels (me), >>>> >>>> - 21:30 or 22:30 in India (Prasoon and Sachin) (I do not know your >>>> exact timezones) >>>> >>>> http://time.is/compare/0900_2_June_2013_in_San_Francisco/Brussels/India >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 31 May 2013 12:14, Stefan Krastanov <krastanov.ste...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> # Concerning the charge densities >>>>> >>>>> I think you are doing it a bit backwards. Both the electric field and >>>>> the charge density are scalar fields. I do not see the need for a class >>>>> like ScalarPotential or ChargeDensity when for both of them you can use >>>>> ScalarField. Moreover, I think it is just wrong to use ScalarPotential to >>>>> represent a density of charge. >>>>> >>>>> For instance something like this (if you want the superposition of an >>>>> external field and a field created by some charge density): >>>>> >>>>> density = >>>>> ScalarField(some_expression_defining_the_field_in_certain_coords) >>>>> potential_internal = Laplacian(density) >>>>> potential_external = ScalarFeild(another_expression) >>>>> final_potential = potential_internal + potential_external >>>>> .... stuff done with final_potential >>>>> >>>>> In CS terms, what I am saying is that you should not create new >>>>> `types` and your module should not be strongly typed. >>>>> >>>>> It would be nice if some more CS-oriented people can comment on the >>>>> above (Ronan possibly?) >>>>> >>>>> # Concerning degenerate distributions >>>>> >>>>> It would be great if we can switch from `ParametricRegion` to scalar >>>>> field containing delta functions: >>>>> >>>>> for instance if the coordinates are r, phi in 2D a circle is both >>>>> >>>>> ParametricRegion(R*sin(phi), R*cos(phi)) >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> DiracDelta(r-R) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
