Re: sympy

On 31 March 2016 at 22:33, Poul Riis wrote: > Den onsdag den 30. marts 2016 kl. 13.17.33 UTC+2 skrev Poul Riis: >> Is it possible to transfer results from sympy to 'normal' python. >> >> In the case below I think my intention is clear enough but it does not work >> as

Re: sympy

Den onsdag den 30. marts 2016 kl. 13.17.33 UTC+2 skrev Poul Riis: > Is it possible to transfer results from sympy to 'normal' python. > > In the case below I think my intention is clear enough but it does not work > as intended. How can it be done? > > Poul Riis > > > > > from sympy import

Re: sympy

On 31 March 2016 at 11:57, Poul Riis wrote: > > ... However, the sympy way seems to be about 70 times slower than using the > derivative calculated 'by hand' (try the example below). > Can it be done in a more efficient way? > > Poul Riis > > > > from sympy import * > from

Re: sympy

Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote: >> Hm, the two functions fmsympy() and fm() do not return the same value: >> >> $ python -i sympy_diff.py >> 1 evaluations with sympy : dt1 = 0.7178411483764648 >> 1 evaluations without

Re: sympy

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote: > Hm, the two functions fmsympy() and fm() do not return the same value: > > $ python -i sympy_diff.py > 1 evaluations with sympy : dt1 = 0.7178411483764648 > 1 evaluations without sympy: dt2 = 0.10177111625671387

Re: sympy

Poul Riis wrote: > Den onsdag den 30. marts 2016 kl. 17.59.49 UTC+2 skrev Steven D'Aprano: >> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:23 am, Poul Riis wrote: >> >> > What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some >> > welldefined function and next define the foundation derivative as a >> >

Re: sympy

Den onsdag den 30. marts 2016 kl. 17.59.49 UTC+2 skrev Steven D'Aprano: > On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:23 am, Poul Riis wrote: > > > What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some > > welldefined function and next define the foundation derivative as a normal > > function so that I can

Re: sympy

Den torsdag den 31. marts 2016 kl. 06.49.34 UTC+2 skrev Gregory Ewing: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:23 am, Poul Riis wrote: > > > >>What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some > >>welldefined function and next define the foundation derivative as a normal

Re: sympy

Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:23 am, Poul Riis wrote: What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some welldefined function and next define the foundation derivative as a normal function py> ftext.evalf(subs={x:3}) -0.0600 Given all that, it looks

Re: sympy

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:23 am, Poul Riis wrote: > What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some > welldefined function and next define the foundation derivative as a normal > function so that I can calculate numerical values or even make a graph. I'm glad you explained what you

Re: sympy

On 2016-03-30 16:23, Poul Riis wrote: What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some welldefined function and next define the foundation derivative as a normal function so that I can calculate numerical values or even make a graph.

Re: sympy

What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some welldefined function and next define the foundation derivative as a normal function so that I can calculate numerical values or even make a graph. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: sympy

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:17 pm, Poul Riis wrote: > Is it possible to transfer results from sympy to 'normal' python. > > In the case below I think my intention is clear enough but it does not > work as intended. How can it be done? How can what be done? Unfortunately, we're not able to read your

Re: sympy

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 7:17:33 AM UTC-4, Poul Riis wrote: > Is it possible to transfer results from sympy to 'normal' python. Poul, welcome to the group. > In the case below I think my intention is clear enough but it does not work > as intended. How can it be done? > > from sympy

Re: sympy

Poul Riis writes: > Is it possible to transfer results from sympy to 'normal' python. Is Sympy not “normal Python”? What transfer are you intending? > In the case below I think my intention is clear enough but it does not > work as intended. How can it be done? First: no,

Re: sympy returns a dictionary sometimes, and sometimes a list of tuples...why?

Brian Blais wrote: Hello, I wrote a very simple script using sympy, and things were working fine, except for one problem. So I have: You will probably want to ask on the sympy mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/sympy from sympy import * x, y = symbols('x','y',real=True)

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 4, 3:13 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 12:32 pm, Nanjundi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does seeding ( random.seed ) random with time fix this? It should. I suppose that depends on how long it takes factorint() to process a number. If the seed is reset before the next

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 5, 9:29 am, Nanjundi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 3:13 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 12:32 pm, Nanjundi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does seeding ( random.seed ) random with time fix this? It should. I suppose that depends on how long it takes factorint() to

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 5, 3:34 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 5, 9:29 am, Nanjundi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 3:13 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 12:32 pm, Nanjundi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does seeding ( random.seed ) random with time fix this? It should.

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

Mensanator wrote: On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mensanator wrote: I'm not hard to please at all. No, of course not, since logically you must think all software is useless. Somehow, I expected better logic from people who call themselves programmers. So you

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 4, 1:12 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mensanator wrote: While we're on the subject of English, the word worthless means has no value. So, a program that doesn't work would generally be worthless. One that

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 4, 10:50 am, Lie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 1:12 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mensanator wrote: While we're on the subject of English, the word worthless means has no value. So, a program

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Notice anything funny about the random choices? import sympy import time import random f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,1)] for i in xrange(10): f1 = random.choice(f) print f1, f2 = random.choice(f) print f2, C

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 4, 2:44 am, Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mensanator wrote: On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mensanator wrote: I'm not hard to please at all. No, of course not, since logically you must think all software is useless. Somehow, I expected

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 4, 10:50 am, Lie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 1:12 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mensanator wrote: While we're on the subject of English, the word worthless means has no value. So, a program

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 4, 12:32 pm, Nanjundi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Notice anything funny about the random choices? import sympy import time import random f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,1)] for i in xrange(10):   f1 =

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 4, 3:13 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what if _I_ wanted to make a repeatable sequence for test purposes? Wouldn't factorint() destroy my attempt by reseeding on every call? Would it? It may just be that you are now itching to see a problem even where there isn't one.

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

apatheticagnostic: I swear, this is one of the most polite-oriented groups I've ever seen. Not that that's a bad thing or anything, it's nice to be nice. Yep, and with lot more work it may even become a bit fit for women/ females too. Bye, bearophile --

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 4, 3:00 pm, Istvan Albert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 3:13 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what if _I_ wanted to make a repeatable sequence for test purposes? Wouldn't factorint() destroy my attempt by reseeding on every call? Would it? I don't know, haven't

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 4, 4:40 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 3:00 pm, Istvan Albert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 4, 3:13 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what if _I_ wanted to make a repeatable sequence for test purposes? Wouldn't factorint() destroy my attempt by

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Notice anything funny about the random choices? import sympy import time import random f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,1)] for i in xrange(10): f1 = random.choice(f) print f1, f2 = random.choice(f) print f2, C

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Notice anything funny about the random choices? import sympy import time import random f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,1)] for i in xrange(10):   f1 =

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

Mensanator wrote: On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the random number generator. It would be a simple fix. Instead of bing about it, file a bug report. I did. Or better yet, submit a patch.

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 3, 4:47 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Notice anything funny about the random choices? import sympy import time import random f = [i for i in

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

I swear, this is one of the most polite-oriented groups I've ever seen. Not that that's a bad thing or anything, it's nice to be nice. (This has been Captain Universal Truth, over and out) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 3, 4:08 pm, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mensanator wrote: On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the random number generator.  It would be a simple fix.  Instead of bing about it, file a

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

Mensanator wrote: On Mar 3, 4:08 pm, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mensanator wrote: On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the random number generator. It would be a simple fix. Instead of bing

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 3, 4:53 pm, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 4:47 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Notice anything funny about the random choices? import

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 3, 7:24 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 4:53 pm, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 4:47 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

Mensanator wrote: On Mar 3, 4:53 pm, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. You must be terribly naive if you expect a freeware program with a version number of 0.5.12 not to have bugs No, but I guess I'm naive thinking that when someone posts a link to such a program that he's

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 3, 6:21 pm, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mensanator wrote: On Mar 3, 4:08 pm, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mensanator wrote: On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the random number

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 3, 6:49 pm, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mensanator wrote: On Mar 3, 4:53 pm, Carl Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. You must be terribly naive if you expect a freeware program with a version number of 0.5.12 not to have bugs No, but I guess I'm naive thinking that when

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

All software has bugs. Good software has bugs. Therefore, good software is software. This makes sympy worse than worthless, as it f***s up other modules. What is it still good for? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

Mensanator wrote: While we're on the subject of English, the word worthless means has no value. So, a program that doesn't work would generally be worthless. One that not only doesn't work but creates side effects that cause other programs to not work (which don't have bugs) would be worse

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 3, 8:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All software has bugs. Good software has bugs. Therefore, good software is software. This makes sympy worse than worthless, as it f***s up other modules. What is it still good for? Lots. The problem is when the total is less than the sum of

Re: sympy: what's wrong with this picture?

On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mensanator wrote: While we're on the subject of English, the word worthless means has no value. So, a program that doesn't work would generally be worthless. One that not only doesn't work but creates side effects that cause