On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 at 01:06, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 5:49 PM Oscar Benjamin
> wrote:
> >
> > I think I let that one through.
>
> No worries. I'm not trying to assign blame. I think in the past a
> cursory glance would be fine, but that's sadly not the case anymore. I
>
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 5:49 PM Oscar Benjamin
wrote:
>
> I think I let that one through.
No worries. I'm not trying to assign blame. I think in the past a
cursory glance would be fine, but that's sadly not the case anymore. I
think in general we as humans are increasingly going to have to get
On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 at 00:47, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 4:56 PM Oscar Benjamin
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 21:32, Aaron Meurer wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 9:12 AM Oscar Benjamin
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For now the best workaround for this
I think I let that one through. Looking at it now it doesn't seem like
a great conversation starter but that's not really a criterion. I
wonder if it was created by an AI somehow or if someone spent a little
time crafting a vaguely believable but not quite sensical message.
This list seems an odd
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 4:56 PM Oscar Benjamin
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 21:32, Aaron Meurer wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 9:12 AM Oscar Benjamin
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > For now the best workaround for this is probably lambdifying the
> > > separate expressions for each element
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 5:36 PM Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> It's been pointed out to me that at least one of the recent messages
> to this list actually *is* spam. It contains a hidden link at the end
> of the message. Whoever let it through moderation didn't notice this,
> because the message
It's been pointed out to me that at least one of the recent messages
to this list actually *is* spam. It contains a hidden link at the end
of the message. Whoever let it through moderation didn't notice this,
because the message otherwise looks legitimate. I've already removed
the message from the
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 21:32, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 9:12 AM Oscar Benjamin
> wrote:
> >
> > For now the best workaround for this is probably lambdifying the
> > separate expressions for each element like:
> >
> > import numpy as np
> > from sympy import *
> >
> > def
Hello Faisal.
Thank you so much for the helpful reply. Your explanation finally got me to, I
think, understand precisely how u and v are defined, which was previously a
mystery to me. I will verify my understanding with some specific examples to
make sure I understand.
I also noticed
I've noticed that Gmail has recently been incorrectly categorizing
quite a few messages on this list as spam. I don't know if this
problem affects others as well, but if you follow this list and don't
want to miss any messages, you may want to consider creating a filter
that prevents any messages
Hello Oscar.
Thank you very much for the reply. Yes, I am indeed looking at the source. I
think Faisal identified the problem in his response and I look forward to being
a part of the discussion to address it. The SymPy community seems very open,
and I appreciate that.
Joe Heafner
Sent from
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 9:12 AM Oscar Benjamin
wrote:
>
> Why would you want (2, 1, 11) rather than (11, 1, 2)?
>
> To me (11, 1, 2) seems more natural since then output[0] has shape (1,
> 2) and corresponds to a single value for the expression at a
> particular value of x. Likewise it would mean
Why would you want (2, 1, 11) rather than (11, 1, 2)?
To me (11, 1, 2) seems more natural since then output[0] has shape (1,
2) and corresponds to a single value for the expression at a
particular value of x. Likewise it would mean that len(output) = 11
corresponding and you can iterate over the
Thanks for the clarification. That is essentially what I assumed is happening.
Regarding your question about what I would expect the returned array to be, my
“hope” was that sympy notices that the input is an array of shape 11, which is
to be evaluated for x, and then broadcasts the results of
This is a common problem that comes up. There are two separate issues.
The first is that lamdifying a constant function does not respect the
shape of array inputs which is a longstanding still open issue:
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/5642
The second issue (which also makes it hard to
Hey Joe,
Thanks for pointing this out.
The sign of the result depends on the direction of the normal vector. SymPy
calculates normal vector using:
[image: image.png]
where *r* is the position vector in terms of parameters.
Different signs for these cases are due to the determination of u and
Hanno,
Yes, you are right, I didn't look closely at your example. I'm not sure of
the fix off the top of my head.
Jason
moorepants.info
+01 530-601-9791
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:07 PM Hanno Klemm wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> thanks for your reply.
>
> I don’t understand how squeeze could help me
Hi Jason,
thanks for your reply.
I don’t understand how squeeze could help me here.
I want both results coming from sympy to be of shape (n,), so that the overall
result is (2,n) in the example. I don’t think that can be accomplished with
squeeze.
Best,
Hanno
> On 19. Jul 2021, at 13:02,
Numpy's squeeze function/method is often helpful for this:
https://numpy.org/doc/stable/reference/generated/numpy.squeeze.html
Jason
moorepants.info
+01 530-601-9791
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 12:15 PM h.k...@gmx.de wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a new user of sympy, and my question might be obvious, but
Hi,
I am a new user of sympy, and my question might be obvious, but I haven't
found anything on the docs or on stackoverflow:
I try to use sympy to create some algebraic matrix expressions, that I want
to lambdify at the end to evaluate on numerical arrays. The issue that I am
currently
Hi Joe,
The vector integration functionality is relatively new. It was added
last year I think in a GSOC project. It's possible that this is a bug
or a corner case that wasn't fully considered.
Have you looked into the code at all?
Oscar
On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 at 00:19, Joe Heafner wrote:
>
>
Sympy is a python library that provides many tools for symbolic
mathematics. It's great for people who want to solve equations and also
have the option of playing around with the variables in order to see what
happens when they change values. One thing I found interesting was being
able to
22 matches
Mail list logo
