+oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com I have made changes you suggested about refactoring test_ode.py in phase-I. could you please review it again?
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 7:40 PM Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it would be better to refactor the tests at the start as in > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/18377 > That can significantly increase test coverage which gives more > confidence when refactoring everything else. It would also make it > possible to compare timings before and after the refactor. > > On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:51, mohit balwani > <mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > +oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com can you please review the changes in > proposal so that i know what i need to make changes in it? > > On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 10:27:39 PM UTC+5:30, mohit balwani wrote: > >> > >> 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/6befc892-802b-4190-9779-c27f3e27adde%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/CAHVvXxQNG0rnRMdvrf%2BGB-9k%3D_odncVq%3DL%3D_QD-sdyXL3t95qQ%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%2BsE81n%2B2swbBVo95j5y_F5wAyEX2hiGR1LCuLPTBvzhig%40mail.gmail.com.
