While the original Fu paper didn't talk about inverse trig simplification
there is nothing stopping someone from implementing it.
Part of Fu is a well defined set and a well defined ordering of
transformations/steps that expand, simplify, and reduce trig expressions.
The analogous work would need
Hmm, that's too bad. I added a note about the naming of inverse trig
functions as acos instead of acrcos to the new tutorial near the section on
trig simplification, but it seems out of place without any actual examples
using them.
Is this planned?
Aaron Meurer
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:23 PM,
no
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Aaron Meurer wrote:
> Does the new Fu trigsimp algorithm implement any algorithms to simplify
> inverse trig functions?
>
> Aaron Meurer
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sympy" group.
> To unsubscribe from
Does the new Fu trigsimp algorithm implement any algorithms to simplify
inverse trig functions?
Aaron Meurer
--
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+unsu
Looks like a definite bug. Could you open an issue for it in the issue
tracker, so it isn't forgotten?
Aaron Meurer
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
> Consider the following code -
>
> from sympy import symbols, trigsimp, sin, cos
>
> (r,th) = symbols('r,th')
> (e_r,e_th)
Consider the following code -
from sympy import symbols, trigsimp, sin, cos
(r,th) = symbols('r,th')
(e_r,e_th) = symbols('e_r,e_th',commutative=False)
#(e_r,e_th) = symbols('e_r,e_th')
A = -r*sin(th)**2*e_r - r*sin(th)*cos(th)*e_th
print A
B = A/(r*sin(th))
print B
print trigsimp(B)
the outpu
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Carsten Knoll wrote:
> Hi there,
>
>
> today I stumbled on a trigsimp problem:
>
> In [4]: trigsimp(cos(x+y).expand(trig=True))
> Out[4]: -sin(x)*sin(y) + cos(x)*cos(y)
>
> In [5]: simplify(cos(x+y).expand(trig=True))
> Out[5]: -sin(x)*sin(y) + cos(x)*cos(y)
>
>
> I
Hi there,
today I stumbled on a trigsimp problem:
In [4]: trigsimp(cos(x+y).expand(trig=True))
Out[4]: -sin(x)*sin(y) + cos(x)*cos(y)
In [5]: simplify(cos(x+y).expand(trig=True))
Out[5]: -sin(x)*sin(y) + cos(x)*cos(y)
In other words: the identity
-sin(x)*sin(y) + cos(x)*cos(y) == cos(x+y)
i
see inline:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Chris Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Kjetil brinchmann Halvorsen
> wrote:
>> This MUST be a bug:
>>
>> In [29]: ( sin(s)*sin(t)-cos(s)*cos(t)).trigsimp()
>> Out[29]: sin(s)⋅sin(t) - cos(s)⋅cos(t)
>>
> It works in my trigsimp branch
>
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Kjetil brinchmann Halvorsen
wrote:
> This MUST be a bug:
>
> In [29]: ( sin(s)*sin(t)-cos(s)*cos(t)).trigsimp()
> Out[29]: sin(s)⋅sin(t) - cos(s)⋅cos(t)
>
It works in my trigsimp branch
(https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/772 which I closed for lack of
interest):
This MUST be a bug:
In [29]: ( sin(s)*sin(t)-cos(s)*cos(t)).trigsimp()
Out[29]: sin(s)⋅sin(t) - cos(s)⋅cos(t)
Kjetil
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Kjetil brinchmann Halvorsen
wrote:
> see inline!
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Sergiu Ivanov
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:05 A
see inline!
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Sergiu Ivanov
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Kjetil brinchmann Halvorsen
> wrote:
>>
>> A follow-upQ : applyfunc seems to only take one argument, the function
>> to apply (It also seems to apply only for matrices, which is strange?)
>> Now
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Kjetil brinchmann Halvorsen
wrote:
>
> A follow-upQ : applyfunc seems to only take one argument, the function
> to apply (It also seems to apply only for matrices, which is strange?)
> Now, trigsimp do not seem to work (the call works, but the result is
> unmodifi
Thanks!
A follow-upQ : applyfunc seems to only take one argument, the function
to apply (It also seems to apply only for matrices, which is strange?)
Now, trigsimp do not seem to work (the call works, but the result is
unmodified,
although I know it is possible to apply rules for getteing
sin/cos(
> This must be very easy!
>>> m=Matrix([x*(x+1)])
>>> m.applyfunc(expand)
[x**2 + x]
>>> m
[x*(x + 1)]
/c
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, sen
Hola!
This miust be very simple, but I still on,.y knows the most basic of
Python and sympy.
I have a matrix, say E, created with function Matrix(...) which
contains many trig functions in its elements, so I want to
pass trigsimp over each element, but E.trigsimp() says
AttributeError: Matrix ha
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> On 28.04.2012 02:42, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
>>>
>>> A quick update:
>>>
>>> I implemented a much better selection strategy for the groebner basis
>>> algorithm ("sugar cube"), implement
On 28.04.2012 02:42, Aaron Meurer wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
A quick update:
I implemented a much better selection strategy for the groebner basis
algorithm ("sugar cube"), implemented the "extended version" (with
trasformation matrix) and improved the algorith
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> A quick update:
>
> I implemented a much better selection strategy for the groebner basis
> algorithm ("sugar cube"), implemented the "extended version" (with
> trasformation matrix) and improved the algorithm to compute module quotients
> to
A quick update:
I implemented a much better selection strategy for the groebner basis
algorithm ("sugar cube"), implemented the "extended version" (with
trasformation matrix) and improved the algorithm to compute module
quotients to use only one groebner basis computation. This sped up the
im
The first algorithm in the paper where ratsimpmodprime was taken from should
probably do quite well - as far as I can tell it shoud be about as fast
as polynomial=True (maybe two or three times slower, or something of
that order - not 100 times), and work quite well (it minimizes the
maximum of th
The first algorithm in the paper where trigsimp was taken from
(I mean ratsimpmodprime, not trigsimp.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send e
On 22.04.2012 20:23, Aaron Meurer wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
I implemented a new option "polynomial=True". As explained in the docstring,
this essentially just applies reduced(). If given a polynomial, and using a
graded order (as by default), this is guaranteed
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> I implemented a new option "polynomial=True". As explained in the docstring,
> this essentially just applies reduced(). If given a polynomial, and using a
> graded order (as by default), this is guaranteed to return a *polynomial*
> equivalent
I implemented a new option "polynomial=True". As explained in the
docstring, this essentially just applies reduced(). If given a
polynomial, and using a graded order (as by default), this is guaranteed
to return a *polynomial* equivalent to what we started with, of minimal
degree, but no other
O well, I was too quick in replying. This involves all sorts of
non-polyonmial expressions and compositions of transcendental functions.
I'm afraid the groebner algorithm does not work with this (in the
current form, at least, and I don't see how to make it work either).
On 21.04.2012 20:48, T
On 21.04.2012 20:52, Aaron Meurer wrote:
I didn't enable cython in the polys, but for me,
trigsimp_groebner(smallExpr, quick=True, hints=[2]) takes 194 seconds
in your latest branch. On the other hand,
smallExpr.rewrite(exp).expand().rewrite(cos).cancel() takes 12
seconds, and produces the same
I didn't enable cython in the polys, but for me,
trigsimp_groebner(smallExpr, quick=True, hints=[2]) takes 194 seconds
in your latest branch. On the other hand,
smallExpr.rewrite(exp).expand().rewrite(cos).cancel() takes 12
seconds, and produces the same answer.
So there's still some work to be d
Thanks for reporting this, I'll fix it :-).
On 21.04.2012 19:06, Ben Goodrich wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Saturday, April 21, 2012 10:42:42 AM UTC-4, Tom Bachmann wrote:
Instead of spamming further I will now really wrap this up and submit a
pull request.
Thanks for working on this. In the exa
Hi Tom,
On Saturday, April 21, 2012 10:42:42 AM UTC-4, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> Instead of spamming further I will now really wrap this up and submit a
> pull request.
>
Thanks for working on this. In the example below, there seems to be a
problem with integer constants in rational expressions.
Ok, so I pushed the changes to my trigsimp branch. There are two
commits, WIP and WIP2.
The basic idea is the following: suppose there are two sets of
variables, x1,..., xn, y1, .., yn, such that none of the xi appears in
the generators of the ideal -- they are "free" generators. Then really
Hi,
I implemented some optimizations (not yet pushed) which allowed me to run
trigsimp_groebner(smallExpr, quick=True, hints=[2])
in "reasonable" time (~5 minutes).
The result is this:
ddq1*(sin(q2)*sin(q4)*cos(2*q3) + cos(q2)*cos(q3)*cos(q4)) -
ddq2*sin(2*q3)*sin(q4) + ddq3*cos(q3)*cos(q4)
On 20.04.2012 21:38, Aaron Meurer wrote:
I'm sorry ^^. It's cProfile. (I run it via python -m cProfile ... got the
letters mixed up in my head).
Oh, I know about that one :) But what graph did you get?
Well the output is in gprof format, and there is a gprof2dot script
floating around on t
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> On 20.04.2012 20:31, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
>>>
>>>
> Sure. But I think (possibly contrary to what I said earlier), staircase
> really isn't the problem. If the result is huge th
On 20.04.2012 20:31, Aaron Meurer wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
Sure. But I think (possibly contrary to what I said earlier), staircase
really isn't the problem. If the result is huge then the next parts
(calling
reduced(), solving the linear system) are going to
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
>
>>> Sure. But I think (possibly contrary to what I said earlier), staircase
>>> really isn't the problem. If the result is huge then the next parts
>>> (calling
>>> reduced(), solving the linear system) are going to take ages as well.
>>
>>
>>
Sure. But I think (possibly contrary to what I said earlier), staircase
really isn't the problem. If the result is huge then the next parts (calling
reduced(), solving the linear system) are going to take ages as well.
Maybe we should run kernprof on it to see what function calls are
really ta
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
>
>>> It avoids some (hopefully many...) of the monomials by taking only those
>>> not
>>> divisible by leading monomials of the groebner basis. (These monomials
>>> form
>>> a basis of the quotient space, which is the most basic property of
>>>
It avoids some (hopefully many...) of the monomials by taking only those not
divisible by leading monomials of the groebner basis. (These monomials form
a basis of the quotient space, which is the most basic property of groebner
bases.)
From what I can see, the final result may be smaller, bu
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> On 20.04.2012 19:50, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
>>>
>>> That could be true. The groebner algorithms actually use a minimal sparse
>>> representation internally. But running trigsimp_groebner
On 20.04.2012 19:50, Aaron Meurer wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
That could be true. The groebner algorithms actually use a minimal sparse
representation internally. But running trigsimp_groebner on smallExpr for me
hangs on "a * d_hat - b * c_hat" - (not even the c
Hi,
so as promised I ran some timings.
Raw data first
--
I first tried
trigsimp_groebner((sin(n*x)/cos(n*x)).expand(trig=True), hints=[tan, n])
This essentially benchmarks groebner basis computation for ideals with
many generators.
In [23]: for n in range(1, 8):
:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> That could be true. The groebner algorithms actually use a minimal sparse
> representation internally. But running trigsimp_groebner on smallExpr for me
> hangs on "a * d_hat - b * c_hat" - (not even the conversion to sparse or
> reduction, ye
Actually, I was being overzealous. This does't quite work.
On 20.04.2012 14:40, Tom Bachmann wrote:
4. Also , identity like 1-sin(x)**2 = cos(x)**2 are not applied (try
trigsimp_groebner((1+sin(x))*(1-sin(x)) . this can be handled if
we apply all identity first as mentioned in 3rd point)
Yes.
4. Also , identity like 1-sin(x)**2 = cos(x)**2 are not applied (try
trigsimp_groebner((1+sin(x))*(1-sin(x)) . this can be handled if
we apply all identity first as mentioned in 3rd point)
Yes. Anything beyond reducing the degree is somewhat fiddly. Basically
the algorithm excludes certain terms
>1. in current TrigonometricFunction we dont have "csc" and "sec "
> which are kind of must in trigonometry simplification ( for now may
> bwe can have empty classes ..just to use theorems)
There are more or less finished classes in the "Trigonometric" branch
and pull request [1]. It's a bit o
On 20.04.2012 13:55, gsagrawal wrote:
i was evaluating this function.Few points which i noticed are below
1. in current TrigonometricFunction we dont have "csc" and "sec "
which are kind of must in trigonometry simplification ( for now
may bwe can have empty classes ..just to use
t; one quick question ..
>>> how to set SYMPY_DEBUG=True ?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Tom Bachmann >> <mailto:e_mc...@web.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Absolutely!
>>>
>>>git pull
>>> https://github.co
tely!
>>
>>git pull
>> https://github.com/ness01/__**sympy<https://github.com/ness01/__sympy>
>>
>><https://github.com/ness01/**sympy <https://github.com/ness01/sympy>>
>> trigsimp
>>
>>The function is called trigsimp_g
lutely!
git pull https://github.com/ness01/__sympy
<https://github.com/ness01/sympy> trigsimp
The function is called trigsimp_groebner. But please note that I
only wrote it yesterday, so there are probably bugs. Also there is
no real docstring (yet).
Quick tips:
one quick question ..
how to set SYMPY_DEBUG=True ?
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> Absolutely!
>
> git pull
> https://github.com/ness01/**sympy<https://github.com/ness01/sympy>trigsimp
>
> The function is called trigsimp_groebner. But please not
Absolutely!
git pull https://github.com/ness01/sympy trigsimp
The function is called trigsimp_groebner. But please note that I only
wrote it yesterday, so there are probably bugs. Also there is no real
docstring (yet).
Quick tips:
- run with SYMPY_DEBUG=True in order to see what is
i want to evaluate this function . can you tell me which branch i need to
checkout ?
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> That could be true. The groebner algorithms actually use a minimal sparse
> representation internally. But running trigsimp_groebner on smallExpr for
> me h
That could be true. The groebner algorithms actually use a minimal
sparse representation internally. But running trigsimp_groebner on
smallExpr for me hangs on "a * d_hat - b * c_hat" - (not even the
conversion to sparse or reduction, yet) just a multiplication of (huge)
polys.
As I said, I'l
I just remembered something important (I'm not sure why I forgot about
it before). It's going to be slow with multiple generators simply
because the polys are slow with multiple generators. This is because
the recursive dense representation used in the polys is highly
inefficient for polynomials
I tried the expressions from
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sympy/3y6orHV2_4k/discussion (see
the tarball linked to in the first post). I just tried the small
expression with n=1, but it just hung on the reduction step. Any
thoughts on how to make this faster? Those expressions would make goo
Great. I think the best way to demonstrate new functionality like
this is to just create a special function that does it (like
trigsimp_groebner) in some branch, and add that to __init__.py. Then,
when it is ready to go in, remove it from __init__.py and integrate it
directly into the main functi
@ness01
Cool.This thread is grabbing my attention and myself to get my hands
dirty.Anyways 3 more exams and i am done.Will be participating actively. :)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> I have pushed a more usable trigsimp_groebner to my new trigsimp branch.
> It is probabl
I have pushed a more usable trigsimp_groebner to my new trigsimp branch.
It is probably buggy, but I've had enough for today. Just to let anyone
know who might wish to try it out :).
Best,
Tom
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post
Well if we are being non-rigorous, then being prime basically means that you
have *all* the equations. For example the ideal generated by (s**2 + c**2 -
1)**2 is obviously not prime, because we "forgot" to add the equation s**2 +
c**2 - 1.
I see. My intuition comes partly from the wikipedia pag
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> On 19.04.2012 17:46, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>>>
>>> The ideal you generate has to be prime :). In particular, if we want to
>>> say
>>> add tan(x), we would like to prove that the ideal
>>> of CC[s, t, c] is a prime ideal. This sort of
>>> pro
On 19.04.2012 18:52, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
Probably. I'll try to code up a more coherent routine in the next couple of
days which we can then base improvements on.
I beg my pardon for not participating in this discussion; I'd be ver
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
>
> Probably. I'll try to code up a more coherent routine in the next couple of
> days which we can then base improvements on.
I beg my pardon for not participating in this discussion; I'd be very
glad to read the reference article for
On 19.04.2012 17:46, Aaron Meurer wrote:
The ideal you generate has to be prime :). In particular, if we want to say
add tan(x), we would like to prove that the ideal
of CC[s, t, c] is a prime ideal. This sort of
problem can be non-trivial (In fact it's not at all obvious how to proceed
here, a
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> On 18.04.2012 23:25, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>>>
>>> Opts is mostly passed through to polys. You probably shouldn't use the
>>> gens=.. option. It is probably a good idea to pass order=grlex or
>>> order=grevlex -- for reasons that are not clear t
I tried adding tan double angle identities to the generators list by
adding tan(k*x).rewrite(cos).expand(trig=True), but I couldn't get
just sin(x).rewrite(tan) to simplify (though I could get some other
stuff to work, like
mytrigsimp(tan(2*x).rewrite(cos).expand(trig=True), n=2)).
By the way t
Hi,
thanks for the input. I'm thinking about it.
Tom
On 19.04.2012 06:55, Ronan Lamy wrote:
Le mercredi 18 avril 2012 à 22:48 +0100, Tom Bachmann a écrit :
[Sherjil, I'm CC-ing you because in my head you are the "linear algebra
expert" :-)]
One last update for today: I tried to implement cod
On 18.04.2012 23:25, Aaron Meurer wrote:
Opts is mostly passed through to polys. You probably shouldn't use the
gens=.. option. It is probably a good idea to pass order=grlex or
order=grevlex -- for reasons that are not clear to me the default order in
polys is lex. In any case, unless you pass a
Le mercredi 18 avril 2012 à 22:48 +0100, Tom Bachmann a écrit :
> [Sherjil, I'm CC-ing you because in my head you are the "linear algebra
> expert" :-)]
>
> One last update for today: I tried to implement code which finds a
> "nice" solution.
>
> Problem statement: let Ax=0 be a homogeneous sys
Here's exactly what I changed, by the way:
diff --git a/mytrigsimp.py b/mytrigsimp.py
index 0b6288d..12715ab 100644
--- a/mytrigsimp.py
+++ b/mytrigsimp.py
@@ -9,15 +9,18 @@ def build_ideal(x, n):
The main tradeoff here is performance: the more expressions we introduce,
the slower the si
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Tom Bachmann wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I managed to improve the situation quite a lot. The new code is this time
> attached as a patch, or alternatively see my (ness01) branch trigsimp.
>
> Executive summary: run mytrigsimp, test the function mytrigsimp. Ignore the
> de
[Sherjil, I'm CC-ing you because in my head you are the "linear algebra
expert" :-)]
One last update for today: I tried to implement code which finds a
"nice" solution.
Problem statement: let Ax=0 be a homogeneous system with non-trivial
solutions. Find a non-trivial solution with maximal nu
Hi all,
I managed to improve the situation quite a lot. The new code is this
time attached as a patch, or alternatively see my (ness01) branch trigsimp.
Executive summary: run mytrigsimp, test the function mytrigsimp. Ignore
the debugging output, pass order=grlex or grevlex for sensible resul
Ah, sorry for the spam. It's computing the reduced normal forms.
On 17.04.2012 20:47, Tom Bachmann wrote:
Actually, solving the systems is quite fast. Not sure what the prolem is
so far...
On 17.04.2012 20:39, Tom Bachmann wrote:
Hi all,
so recently we (I ...) pushed the function ratsimpmodpr
Actually, solving the systems is quite fast. Not sure what the prolem is
so far...
On 17.04.2012 20:39, Tom Bachmann wrote:
Hi all,
so recently we (I ...) pushed the function ratsimpmodprime, created by
Mateusz' last year's gsoc student. It can be used to simplify fractions
modulo prime ideals
Hi all,
so recently we (I ...) pushed the function ratsimpmodprime, created by
Mateusz' last year's gsoc student. It can be used to simplify fractions
modulo prime ideals, and it was suggested we try to incorporate in into
trigsimp. I tried basically that [with little success, see below]. Firs
Hello,
I'm afraid trigonometric simplification is a known weakness of sympy. On
the other hand, there is good news in your case: *very* recently
(yesterday?) we pushed a new function called ratsimpmodprime. It can be
used as follows:
In [2]: ratsimpmodprime((-sin(x) + 1)/cos(x) + cos(x)/(-si
if you apply trigsimp on "(-sin(x) + 1)/cos(x) + cos(x)/(-sin(x) + 1)"
function
sympy result : (-sin(x) + 1)/cos(x) + cos(x)/(-sin(x) + 1) (dosent solve
anything)
maxima result : 2/cos(x)
what am i missing in sympy ?
Is there any way i can use maxima under sympy ? Or is there any other way
by
No. Right now, trigsimp() is very weak. It basically just applies
the various forms of sin**2 + cos**2 = 1. Improvements would be
welcome, though.
Aaron Meurer
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Alan Bromborsky wrote:
> Has there been any work to applying trigsimp to hyperbolic trig functions?
>
Has there been any work to applying trigsimp to hyperbolic trig functions?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sympy+unsubscr...@goo
On Sep 4, 2010, at 11:02 AM, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
>
The other issue that came up is, I see from the archives, again a
known problem: if I want to define multiplication for "tuples", a
multiplication of a tuple by a scalar (o
On Sep 3, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
>>> The other issue that came up is, I see from the archives, again a
>>> known problem: if I want to define multiplication for "tuples", a
>>> multiplication of a tuple by a scalar (on the left or the right) is
>>> the tuple of each component m
>> The other issue that came up is, I see from the archives, again a
>> known problem: if I want to define multiplication for "tuples", a
>> multiplication of a tuple by a scalar (on the left or the right) is
>> the tuple of each component multiplied by the scalar. I define the
>> __mul__ and __rm
On Sep 2, 2010, at 11:57 PM, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
> Aaron, Chris,
> Thanks for the replies!
>
> Aaron wrote:
>> This is great. SymPy code is *MUCH* easier to read than some lisp, in my
>> opinion.
>
> So far, yes and no. The main thing is that I needed to implement
> structured "tuples"
fr., 03.09.2010 kl. 11.27 +0530, skrev Rahul Siddharthan:
> Aaron, Chris,
> Thanks for the replies!
>
> Aaron wrote:
> > This is great. SymPy code is *MUCH* easier to read than some lisp, in my
> > opinion.
>
> So far, yes and no. The main thing is that I needed to implement
> structured "tupl
Aaron, Chris,
Thanks for the replies!
Aaron wrote:
> This is great. SymPy code is *MUCH* easier to read than some lisp, in my
> opinion.
So far, yes and no. The main thing is that I needed to implement
structured "tuples" as defined in SICM, and functions that take tuples
as arguments, and der
Hi.
On Sep 2, 2010, at 7:48 AM, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
> Hello,
> I am trying to re-implement most of the code from "Structure and
> Interpretation of Classical Mechanics" (Sussman and Wisdom,
> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicm) in sympy. The original language is
> their particular dialect of S
Hello,
I am trying to re-implement most of the code from "Structure and
Interpretation of Classical Mechanics" (Sussman and Wisdom,
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicm) in sympy. The original language is
their particular dialect of Scheme. I have had success with most of
the first chapter, but with quit
I've published my branch of sympy where I started implementing the
trig simplification algorithm by Hu et al. I also started working on
the .eval() methods of sin, cos, and tan, and wrote a lot of tests for
the behavior that Mathematica gives. Currently,
py.test sympy/functions/elementary
passes
Last night I was deriving the moment of inertia for a solid torus
using Sympy. It mostly worked, except for the step where the
determinant of the Jacobian for the change of variables mapping was to
be computed, the result was unable to be simplified by trigsimp. I
gave it a shot anyway, and it
I'm writing some tests for some code that expresses a Vector expression in
the coordinates of a different frame. I am using Sympy's trigsimp to
simplify expressions, but the following Sympy expression isn't
trigsimplifying:
cos(q4)**2 + sin(q3)**2*sin(q4)**2 + cos(q3)**2*cos(q4)**2*tan(q4)**2
It
How hard would it be to have trigsimp handle hyperbolic trig functions
as well as the ordinary ones?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegr
Trigsimp should also simplify hyperbolic trigonometric functions!
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this gr
93 matches
Mail list logo
