hello, I have made some changes in project motivation. Does this look good or Should I detail that more?
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:15 AM Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it would be good to spend more time explaining what changes > you will make and why. > > Don't assume that someone reviewing this proposal will understand the > current problems of the ODE module or why your proposal is beneficial. > You should make it clear to them what the problems are and how your > proposed changes will lead to tangible improvements. (This advice > applies to all GSOC applicants) > > -- > Oscar > > On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 19:19, mohit balwani > <mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Here is rough draft of my GSoC proposal > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1slfj2CJRgKpmf0zOW93YkxYUDUvutTmkDX6BmsFfmIs/edit?usp=drivesdk > > > > Any suggestions would really be appreciated. > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 9:15 PM Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Mohit, > >> > >> You don't need to resend the previous emails. This discussion is > >> becoming too detailed though and belongs on the Github issue for > >> refactoring the ODE module: > >> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/18348 > >> > >> Oscar > >> > >> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 15:26, mohit balwani > >> <mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > hello, > >> > > >> > so should I resend the previous mail to the mailing list? > >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:59 PM mohit balwani < > mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> For pattern matching, I kept in mind that we can extract the > elements of our general solution from the equation with direct matching > just like First_linear. And for `SingleODESolver` there will be proper > logic checking whether the given equation matches or not. > >> >> > >> >> I am a bit confused about how all linear solvers can be based on > pattern because > >> >> let's say we want to implement > `nth_linear_constant_coeff_undetermined_coefficients`. > >> >> its general equation is > >> >> > >> >> a_n f^{(n)}(x) + a_{n-1} f^{(n-1)}(x) + .. + a_1 f'(x) + a_0 > f(x) = P(x) > >> >> > >> >> Now p(x) needs to have a finite number of linearly independent > derivatives and in pattern matching to write general solution we should use > the extracted elements given by wilds function. > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:18 PM Oscar Benjamin < > oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> I think the series solvers should probably have their own > superclass. > >> >>> I'd like to move them out of normal dsolve anyway. > >> >>> > >> >>> Of the others I think that probably all the linear ones can be based > >> >>> on the Pattern solver. You should give a rationale for why you have > >> >>> divided them up like this. > >> >>> > >> >>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 10:29, mohit balwani > >> >>> <mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Hi, > >> >>> > currently, there are 28 solvers in the ODE module out of which 6 > solvers have been refactored already. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I have classified the remaining 22 solvers on the basis of their > parent class whether they should inherit SinglePatternODESolver or > SingleODESolver > >> >>> > > >> >>> > SinglePatternODESolver > >> >>> > > >> >>> > separable > >> >>> > separable_reduced > >> >>> > linear_coefficients > >> >>> > Liouville > >> >>> > 2nd_linear_airy > >> >>> > 2nd_linear_bessel > >> >>> > 2nd_hypergeometrics > >> >>> > > >> >>> > SingleODESolver > >> >>> > > >> >>> > 1st_exact > >> >>> > 1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_indep_div_dep > >> >>> > 1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_dep_div_indep > >> >>> > 1st_power_series > >> >>> > 2nd_power_series_ordinary > >> >>> > 2nd_power_series_regular > >> >>> > nth_linear_constant_coeff_homogeneous > >> >>> > nth_linear_euler_eq_homogeneous > >> >>> > nth_linear_constant_coeff_undetermined_coefficients > >> >>> > nth_linear_euler_eq_nonhomogeneous_undetermined_coefficients > >> >>> > nth_linear_constant_coeff_variation_of_parameters > >> >>> > nth_linear_euler_eq_nonhomogeneous_variation_of_parameters > >> >>> > nth_order_reducible > >> >>> > 1st_homogeneous_coeff_best ( it just gives the best result from > "1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_indep_div_dep" and > "1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_dep_div_indep") > >> >>> > Lie_group > >> >>> > > >> >>> > +oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com does this classification look good? > >> >>> > Any suggestions would be really helpful. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Regards, > >> >>> > Mohit > >> >>> > > >> >>> > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 1:53 PM mohit balwani < > mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Hi, oscar > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> I started looking at the (Single) ODE solver closely and as > suggested by you, they are to be refactored in the form of classes. After > performing all this work it will be easier to maintain the code and > whenever a new solver is to be added it will be very easy to add it. In my > GSoC proposal what exactly I should elaborate on because refactoring > different solvers will be based on either SinglePatternODESolver > >> >>> >> or SingleODESolver only and both of the base classes are already > implemented so we just have to inherit them. one thing I noted that there > are helper functions in ode.py so I guess they should be moved to other > file deutils.py may be. > >> >>> >> so in my proposal should I show the code for one of the > non-refactored solvers? > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Thanks, > >> >>> >> Mohit > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 2:22 AM Oscar Benjamin < > oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> Hi Mohit, > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> That's plenty enough for a GSOC project. You should try to go > into > >> >>> >>> more detail in your proposal about exactly what you think should > >> >>> >>> happen though. Perhaps review all of the (single) ODE solvers > that are > >> >>> >>> there now and how they can be refactored and simplified or > improved in > >> >>> >>> the process. > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> Refactoring the tests so that they can be reused will make it > possible > >> >>> >>> to run all solvers on all of the tested ODEs which will expose > many > >> >>> >>> bugs in the individual solvers. You don't need to worry about > having > >> >>> >>> enough to do if you start thinking about fixing those bugs! If > I was > >> >>> >>> doing this work myself I would begin with refactoring the tests > so > >> >>> >>> that I can use them to compare before/after performance while > >> >>> >>> refactoring the solving code. > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> I think this would be too much for one GSOC project but the > ultimate > >> >>> >>> goal I would like is to see the ODE code organised more like > >> >>> >>> integral_steps with rules leading to other rules and so on so > that we > >> >>> >>> can have step-by-step solutions and better debugging output. > Many of > >> >>> >>> the solvers are actually using substitutions so we should make > it > >> >>> >>> possible for a solver to simply match the ODE and say "use this > >> >>> >>> substitution". We can't even begin to implement a rule-based > system > >> >>> >>> until dsolve is refactored though. > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> Oscar > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 19:34, mohit balwani < > mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >>> > I am planning to take Refactoring ODE module as a GSoC > project. > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >>> > For every solver we need to make it as a separate class so > that classify_ode() can easily match the ode and return the solution right > away. After that the test_ode.py also needs to be refactored as there are > lot of redundant test and we can use data structures for maintaining and > testing each and every part of test_ode.py.This will provide uniformity as > there are some blocks which are not tested. > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >>> > So will this be enough for GSoC'20? > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >>> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 12:14 AM Oscar Benjamin < > oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> Those might be able to speed things up but not until the ODE > module is > >> >>> >>> >> refactored. The reason the module needs to be refactored is > that right > >> >>> >>> >> now it runs the whole of classify_ode including the matching > code for > >> >>> >>> >> every single solver. > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> If it just returned the first match straight away and > computed the > >> >>> >>> >> result it would be much faster. Then adding new fast methods > that are > >> >>> >>> >> tried first can speed things up. As it stands though each > method that > >> >>> >>> >> you add will probably just slow it down more. There needs to > be a > >> >>> >>> >> refactor first so that classify_ode still works as expected > even if > >> >>> >>> >> dsolve does something different. > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 16:04, mohit balwani > >> >>> >>> >> <mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> >>> >> > > >> >>> >>> >> > > >> >>> >>> >> > > >> >>> >>> >> > On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 10:00:33 PM UTC+5:30, > mohit balwani wrote: > >> >>> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >> I have ideas of implementing functionalities in ODE > mentioned in wiki page. with whom should I discuss it? > >> >>> >>> >> > > >> >>> >>> >> > > >> >>> >>> >> > > >> >>> >>> >> > I have attached a pdf file in which there are shortcut > tricks to solve linear ode, i don't know whether these methods are already > implemented indirectly or will enhance the speed.But In my opinion if they > are implemented then lot of work could be saved. For example if we look at > method of undetermined coefficients, to find a particular integral of ode > it solves for coefficient by comparing them and call solve which has matrix > as argument. Now with the help of these tricks we do not need to call solve > as it will directly find out the coefficients of particular integral. This > pdf is handwritten notes and i have tried to write them as neat and > understandable as possible and with each case i have also written 1 example > so that it becomes easy to go through. > >> >>> >>> >> > > >> >>> >>> >> > -- > >> >>> >>> >> > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/2df1d019-75a6-48eb-a6ce-676337cda1a5%40googlegroups.com > . > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> -- > >> >>> >>> >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxR-9tiiEN8Fak_0czd19gtBTiL_Lna09CLWcck72e5j-A%40mail.gmail.com > . > >> >>> >>> > > >> >>> >>> > -- > >> >>> >>> > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2BuBTuy4jfMssJJqd59oZO-zf3uA29sMFPxkmjnbwmMexA%40mail.gmail.com > . > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> -- > >> >>> >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxSf5xAg2V0M1vF2xo%2B1_0C_s4P1pf8%3DPJwVKUYfNNRxyA%40mail.gmail.com > . > >> > >> -- > >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxS_jx5EeJ2jSefgTGEXDY_D86C4i85178H26nCYEcrkPA%40mail.gmail.com > . > > > > -- > > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2Buv0SrJtnusseGyGDwUqOBM-vGmTv5Z%2B4CwONdomBt%3D_Q%40mail.gmail.com > . > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxQvJeYsxKjg8au9JtG%2BP9n%2BNzx0S9xBMuynQeUqRUJS8w%40mail.gmail.com > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2BvgMAgyGVGoxAH4zFVvgoq2ONemXO0zHPwL9g1WDbB%2BYg%40mail.gmail.com.
