Thanks Harsh for reviewing and suggestions. Sometimes is it hard to understand what you are trying to say in the > proposal. Check for grammar, revise text to see if you can explain > things in > a better way. For section where you are proposing an algorithm explain in > it in > step by step manner using bullet points.
I have added some more examples and in the shared docs . Feel free to add more comments if any confusion. * Expand on how you'll "connect" solveset and diophantine solver, take an > overview of the diophantine solver, study its input and output api, and > propose how you'll do the actual "connection". Solveset will get answer from diophantine.py methods and then solveset will change the format accordingly. I have added some examples in `Integer solution` section to show how solveset will return solution in conditionset and imageset. >>> diop_solve(18*x + 5*y-48) (5â tâ + 96, -18â tâ - 336) >>> solveset(18*x + 5*y-48, x, S.Integers) ConditionSet(ImageSet(Lambda(n, 5*n + 96), S.Integers), Eq(y, ImageSet( Lambda(n, -18*n - 336), S.Integers)), True) >>> solveset(18*x + 5*y-48, y, S.Integers) ConditionSet(ImageSet(Lambda(n, -18*n - 336), S.Integers), Eq(x, ImageSet( Lambda(n, 5*n + 96), S.Integers)), True) I also found that we can implement system of linear diophantine equation solver in diophantine. I have added a section in the shared docs for this. > * I don't think your gen solve method is correct, I've written my comments > on > #10713 and haven't recieved satisfactory answer. The current idea can give general form for two expressions. It seems if we can get* more* simplified `poly_solution `* (means if solution for `exp` form ( simplified trig eq exp form) is ( solution for exp(any_args *x ) is )* * -I and I* => then we get two solutions 2*n*pi + pi/2 and 2*n*pi + 3*pi/2 .But it can be pi*(n+1)/2 ) ) ( here I am taking 3*pi/2 instead of -pi/2 ). The number of `exp` terms are more* then* number of solutions will be more (union). If *somehow* we make all the `exp` present in the expression; into one `exp` (means exp(I*x) +exp(-I*x) = > exp(-I*x) * ( exp(2*I*x) +1) then exp(-I*x) = 0 have no solution and solution of exp(2*I*x) +1= 0 contribute for final solution which is pi*(n+1)/2 ) so in this way we can get more simplified solution* with less terms and unions*. This is what I was trying to say using example `sin(x) = 0` in the PR#10713 <https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/10713> comments. So to follow this steps we need to improve PR #10733 <https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/10733> in the `_invert` method *(`exp` section*) , imageset evaluate, reduce args union part.I hope within 1-2 weeks I will be able to make a PR with this implementation, if I am correct. * For the time-line you don't need to say "Submit PR/commits in each 3-4 > days > and make required changes", also you have not mentioned when will your > college restart after the summer. I have added/modified the docs. shared docs : https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hI7UvPXZwphzspNzlMwaVy2v5c5jFPN4nks0oG3GBU/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13hI7UvPXZwphzspNzlMwaVy2v5c5jFPN4nks0oG3GBU/edit?usp=sharing> -- Shekhar Prasad Rajak. On Thursday, 4 February 2016 00:40:34 UTC+5:30, Shekhar Prasad Rajak wrote: > > > Hello, > my name is Shekhar Prasad Rajak.I want to discuss about Solver and > Solveset module > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/GSoC-2016-Ideas#solvers .I am going > to apply for GSoc'16, so trying to know > what sympy community expecting. > Solveset came to Replace all internal solve() calls > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/8711 > So I should focus on Solveset,right? > I have some questions : > 1.What are the main problems/issues in Solver and Solveset right now? > 2.Is Solveset module done?If not,what are the main features, that should > be added ? > I have seen Harsh's PR : https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/7523 > It seems, these need some works : > -functions solvable by LambertW > -functions that can be recast as polynomials with a change of variables > this, for example; this can be > factored out of solve where multiple generators are handled > -use something like this : > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/7523#issuecomment-62198981 > to handle the XFAILed test test_real_imag_splitting1, this will be > handled in the set module. > > 3.This is list of Issues/ Discussions I found. > > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/GSoC-2014-Application-Harsh-Gupta:-Solvers#relevant-issues-discussions-and-references > > <https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/GSoC-2014-Application-Harsh-Gupta:-Solvers#relevant-issues-discussions-and-references> > but I don't know, whether they are solved or not. > Issues which are still open in github repo, need solutions. > There are also links of pdf and research papers, I am not sure whether > they are implemented or not. > > 4.Can we use python library multiprocessing,Synchronization for the faster > execution?one issue was opened for the same,which is closed now.But it is > always better to take less time. > > > -- > Shekhar Prasad Rajak > > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sympy. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/0fbc50d2-91a8-4dda-807f-934f219f0ec6%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
