Re: [sympy] Bug in factor() and simplify()

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 5:53:11 PM UTC+2, Oscar wrote: > > On 26 February 2016 at 17:15, Aaron Meurer > wrote: > >> I traced this to here: > >> > >> In [1]: expr = x*sin(y)**2 + x*cos(y)**2 + 0.1*sin(y)**2 + > 0.1*cos(y)**2 > >> > >> In [2]: p = Poly(expr, x,

[sympy] Re: GSOC16 : Risch algorithm for symbolic integration

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 5:01:21 PM UTC+2, Ashwani Gautam wrote: > > Hi, the idea "Risch algorithm for symbolic integration" seems interesting > to me and thus want to contribute to it, anyone who can give me the > direction to proceed further, the latest information about the project, >

[sympy] Regarding Code Generation with Sympy

Hello all, I am a GSoC aspirant and I want to work on the Code Generation module as a project this year. I had a few questions in mind and needed help regarding them. 1) It is mentioned on the ideas page that the codegen

[sympy] help Having troubles starting development

I am new to open source projects and haven't done one before. It seems quite scary at the moment. Have looked at dozens and this one seems less scary to get into. With how the issue page has beginner issues listed. To the point. I have a windows operating system and a linux virtual machine.

Re: [sympy] GSOC 16 : implementation-of-vector-integration

Yes i agree, smart choice of coordinate system can greatly simplify the math involved, also it would take less time. So, should i start adding code for Rectangular, cylindrical and spherical coordinates in physics vector module. Aaron/Jason you want to add something here ? On Wednesday, March

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC idea for a project: holonomic functions

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:11 AM, shubham tibra wrote: > Thanks for your response Ondrej and Fredrik. > > I will soon be writing a wiki page for the algorithm. I agree with what > Ondrej said, it's better to figure out the technical algorithms rather than > abstracting the

[sympy] GSOC 2016 sympy-live-and-sympy-gamma-on-google-app-engine

Hi, i am mvnnn and i will be applying for GSOC 2016. i am full-stack developer (front-end : HTML,CSS,jquery,React,angularJS,javascript)(back-end: Django, NodeJs). I went through GSoC'16 ideas page and found this interesting sympy-live-and-sympy-gamma-on-google-app-engine

[sympy] SciPy 2016

**SciPy 2016 Conference (Scientific Computing with Python) Announcement** *Call for Proposals: Submit Your Tutorial and Talk Ideas by March 25, 2015 at http://scipy2016.scipy.org . SciPy 2016 , the 15th annual Scientific

Re: [sympy] GSOC 16 : implementation-of-vector-integration

Hi, since jason pointed put that the vector module currently only supports three dimensional vector analysis, its now only 3 dimensional problem of vector integration. Yes i do know about both the theorem(Green and Stokes) from my first year undergraduate classes. Though i still fail to catch

Re: [sympy] GSOC 16 : implementation-of-vector-integration

FYI, The vector module currently only supports three dimensional vector analysis. Jason moorepants.info +01 530-601-9791 On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Alan Bromborsky wrote: > The question is do you only want to implement vector integration in 3 > dimensions (Green's

Re: [sympy] New Contributor

Please start here: https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/introduction-to-contributing Jason moorepants.info +01 530-601-9791 On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Ritesh Giri wrote: > "HI, i am new here , i would love to contribute , could anyone help me out > .. about how to

Re: [sympy] GSOC 16 : implementation-of-vector-integration

The question is do you only want to implement vector integration in 3 dimensions (Green's and Stoke's theorems) or in n dimensions (generalized Stoke's theorem in differential geometry) and in flat space or for a general manifold? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes'_theorem On Tue, Mar 1,

[sympy] New Contributor

"HI, i am new here , i would love to contribute , could anyone help me out .. about how to get started " -- 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

Re: [sympy] SymPy 1.0 release candidate 1 ready for testing

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Ondřej Čertík wrote: > Hi Aaron, > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Aaron Meurer wrote: >> The SymPy 1.0 release candidate 1 is ready for testing. Please >> download and test it, and report any issues here, or at >>

Re: [sympy] Re: What is out there for SymPy code generation / optimizing compiler effort?

Yes, CSE is an important optimization. Another useful optimization for your case would be a function that automatically splits up larger expressions (like splitting a large sum into many += assignments). Aaron Meurer On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Liang wrote: > This is a

Re: [sympy] GSOC 2016: Assumptions

Your list looks spot on. The speed of refine is a very important issue. Regarding the inconsistencies, I think the one you mention is the main one left. If there are any others they are relatively minor. Aarn Meurer On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Anish Shah wrote: >

Re: [sympy] Bug in factor() and simplify()

On 26 February 2016 at 17:15, Aaron Meurer wrote: >> I traced this to here: >> >> In [1]: expr = x*sin(y)**2 + x*cos(y)**2 + 0.1*sin(y)**2 + 0.1*cos(y)**2 >> >> In [2]: p = Poly(expr, x, cos(y), sin(y), domain='RR') >> >> In [3]: p >> Out[3]: Poly(1.0*x*cos(y)**2 +

[sympy] GSOC 16 : implementation-of-vector-integration

Hi There, I will be applying for GSOC this year. I do all of my numerical work done in python thus i consider myself fair in Python. While going through the Ideas page i found the following topics pretty interesting to me. 1.) implementation of vector integration. 2.) classical mechanics

[sympy] GSOC16 : Risch algorithm for symbolic integration

Hi, the idea "Risch algorithm for symbolic integration" seems interesting to me and thus want to contribute to it, anyone who can give me the direction to proceed further, the latest information about the project, what is implemented and what exactly has to be done ? -- You received this

[sympy] Gsoc 2016

Hi Developers, I am Shubham Dash.I am a third year engineering undergraduate.I was going through the ideas list and I would like to contribute to the solvers in the upcoming Gsoc'16. Any leads how to proceed? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

[sympy] Re: GSoC 16: Solvers

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 5:26:09 PM UTC+5:30, AMiT Kumar wrote: > > If you are planning to implement search based solver, then I would > recommend you to work on a concrete plan soon. > I will think about some possible implementation of a search based solver. And I would appreciate if you can

Re: [sympy] Re: GSoC idea for a project: holonomic functions

Thanks for your response Ondrej and Fredrik. I will soon be writing a wiki page for the algorithm. I agree with what Ondrej said, it's better to figure out the technical algorithms rather than abstracting the design. I am creating a class which can represent a holonomic function. Since we

[sympy] Re: GSoC 16: Solvers

If you are planning to implement search based solver, then I would recommend you to work on a concrete plan soon. As It would take a lot of time to have a consensus from the community on something which has not been explored much and frankly speaking I am skeptical about it currently. For the case

[sympy] Re: GSoC 16: Solvers

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 4:33:30 PM UTC+5:30, AMiT Kumar wrote: > > In general solving inequality is not a big deal if we are able to > solve the equality first. After solving the equality if just a matter > of returning the solution in a restricted interval. So, I would > first like to see

[sympy] Re: GSoC 16: Solvers

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 4:27:12 PM UTC+5:30, AMiT Kumar wrote: > > > There are a lot of equations which are not solved the solveset or solve in > general, the equation you mentioned could just be one of them, It doesn't > denotes a well known type of equation which could be targeted, I would

Re: [sympy] GSOC 2016: Assumptions

I don't remember the inconsistency between old and new assumptions but are you sure this is the only one left? Perhaps there was something to change which "needed decision". I'll try to go through my work and get back to you. ​ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: [sympy] GSOC 2016: Assumptions

Hi Aaron and Sudhanshu, Since I last posted on this thread I have tackled some issues related to assumptions. I also read Aaron's post on the mailing list explaining the need for new assumptions and I went through Sudhanshu's work last summer. After some discussion on SymPy Gitter, I have a

[sympy] Re: GSoC 16: Solvers

In general solving inequality is not a big deal if we are able to solve the equality first. After solving the equality if just a matter of returning the solution in a restricted interval. So, I would first like to see the equality being solved then inequality would work for most of the cases, as

[sympy] Re: GSoC 16: Solvers

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 1:58:19 AM UTC+5:30, Kshitij Saraogi wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:35:27 PM UTC+5:30, AMiT Kumar wrote: >> >> >> 1. Search Based Solvers: >> >> This idea is currently vague, we need to figure out how exactly >> we can develop this. It would be

[sympy] Re: GSoC 16: Solvers

Hello, Another point I would like to know about is the state of *inequality* handling by solveset. Recently, I was looking at issue #10140 . It seems that the current solveset gives incomplete as well as an incorrect result. In []: