Ideally the best strategy would be to pass all the equations to solve
all at once but the implementation for polynomial systems still needs
a lot of work so that isn't always the best way.
Beyond that it's hard to say more without being able to try it out
myself. Can you show (shortened) code
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 at 23:48, David Bailey wrote:
>
> I already see an improvement!
>
> I tried modifying the ODE transformer code you sent me to use x=cosh(t), and
> at 1.6 the resultant expression didn't simplify properly, but at 1.7 it does.
> I guess someone put an improvement into trigsimp
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 16:37, David Bailey wrote:
>
> On 19/11/2020 15:37, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>
>
> I obviously wasn't paying enough attention when I wrote that :)
>
> I know the feeling, because I also managed to garble the differential
> equation, which should
If the original commit history is messy I would recommend squashing
the original commits and using "coauthored-by" to attribute the
original author. It's best to do this before making your own commits
on top.
Oscar
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 00:09, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> You can revive an existing
!
- 彭于斌*
- Abhay_Dhiman*
- Sachin Agarwal
- Shubham Agrawal*
- Sakirul Alam*
- Abhinav Anand
- Mohit Balwani
- Elias Basler*
- Nijso Beishuizen*
- Oscar Benjamin
- Mohammed Bilal*
- Francesco Bonazzi
- Peter Brady
- Ondřej Čertík
- Peter Cock*
- Coder-RG*
- Lorenzo Contento*
- Björn Dahlgren
*
- Abhinav Anand
- Mohit Balwani
- Elias Basler*
- Nijso Beishuizen*
- Oscar Benjamin
- Mohammed Bilal*
- Francesco Bonazzi
- Peter Brady
- Ondřej Čertík
- Peter Cock*
- Coder-RG*
- Lorenzo Contento*
- Björn Dahlgren
- Vaishnav Damani*
- Brandon David*
- Aaryan Dewan*
- Amanda Dsouza*
- Shivang Dubey
As soon as I send the email I see an obvious correction. That should say:
You can install sympy *1.7* with:
$ pip install -U sympy
--
Oscar
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 at 14:25, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> It is my pleasure to announce the final release of SymPy 1.7.
Hi all,
We have just completed a migration from using Travis as our CI system
to using Github Actions. This was discussed in several issues and pull
requests but the main motivation is here:
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/20374
I don't know how long SymPy has been using Travis but they
and move to another system.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM Oscar Benjamin
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > We have just completed a migration from using Travis as our CI system
>> > to using Github Actions. This was dis
- Oscar Benjamin
- Gagandeep Singh
The SHA sums for the release files are:
a3de9261e97535b83bb8607b0da2c7d03126650fafea2b2789657b229c246b2e
sympy-1.7.1.tar.gz
c986df98babfb9f5ddea49ba7b69398f6d1cfada5ae0dc0431691cddaff851f6
sympy-1.7.1-py3-none-any.whl
Hi Paul,
It doesn't really make sense to compare CPU and RAM directly.
Generally speaking if your computer doesn't run out of memory then you
have enough and do not need more.
I can say that sympy will not make use of more than 1 core unless you
run multiple sympy processes simultaneously. That
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 01:23, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 5:37 PM Oscar wrote:
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > It's not completely intuitive but you can do the substitution in several
> > stages. In your example (this is run isympy where f and g are both
> > functions):
> >
> >
en issue the release whenever that happens. That does mean that
>> anyone hoping to finish something for 1.7 has more time to get it in.
>> Note that anything merged to master now will not go into the 1.7
>> release unless it is merged into the 1.7 release branch so you need to
>>
On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 at 19:47, אוריאל מליחי wrote:
>
> > Okay, well if you want this to be included in sympy I suggest to begin.
> > by making some specific proposals either here or in github issues. We
> > should agree the basic ideas before too much work is done. Of course
> > you don't
SymPy users can use sympy from different contexts or interfaces. They
might use it through octave or sage or mathics etc. Or they can use
SymPy directly in Python. The advantage of allowing users to use sympy
directly in Python is that they can use all of the tools of the Python
language to
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 09:30, emanuel.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> with 1.7.1, I get simpler results (no unsolved integrals) :
Oh yes. Thanks for pointing that out. Actually I checked now and I
also get the same as you with both 1.7.1 and the current master
branch.
I'm not sure what I was using
I'll add my thoughts in a lengthy post here.
Firstly some background on why the existing Eq (full name Equality)
class is problematic. The Eq class is a Boolean and its intention is
to represent the truth of an expression. What this means is that it
will often evaluate to True or False e.g.:
>>>
gt;
> -((8*exp(-5*s))/s^2 - 8/s^2)/(s^2 + 4)
>
> and finally
> y=ilaplace(Y)
>
> gives
>
> y =
>
> 2*t - sin(2*t) + 8*heaviside(t - 5)*(sin(2*t - 10)/8 - t/4 + 5/4)
>
> So, chis procedure is not possible to process in current version of SymPy.
>
> When wi
to use
> Anaconda/conda-forge, especially if you are on Windows.
>
> Aaron Meurer
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:40 AM David Bailey wrote:
> >
> > On 20/01/2021 13:54, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> >
> > I think David is using Windows so that apt-get command
I haven't used sympy's Laplace transform code but I can tell you that
dsolve is able to solve the differential equation:
In [14]: y = Function('y')
In [15]: t = Symbol('t')
In [16]: g = 8*t*(Heaviside(t) - Heaviside(t-5)) + 40*Heaviside(t-5)
In [17]: eq = Eq(y(t).diff(t, 2) + 4*y(t), g)
In
In Python 4j is the literal syntax to create an imaginary number (0 +
4*I). You need to use 4*j.
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 at 10:10, Thomas Ligon wrote:
>
> My understanding is that Sympy uses I as sqrt(-1), but I am running into a
> problem with j. I have defined j as a symbol, but j**2 is sometimes
Sorry, the list is moderated by default so the first time you send a
message someone needs to approve it. I've just approved both of your
messages.
On Fri, 1 Jan 2021 at 21:14, mayank gaur wrote:
>
> I introduced myself to this community at this group around 2 days earlier but
> I cannot yet,
Hi Brandon,
That sounds great. Looking forward to working with you too.
I don't know what non-holonomic integrators are. Do you mean
non-holonomic in the mechanics sense?
Oscar
On Tue, 29 Dec 2020 at 00:36, Brandon Wilson wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I am Brandon Wilson. I am a community college
Okay, well if you want this to be included in sympy I suggest to begin
by making some specific proposals either here or in github issues. We
should agree the basic ideas before too much work is done. Of course
you don't have to implement all the proposals but we should agree what
makes sense as
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 23:32, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:20 PM Oscar Benjamin
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Aaron for sorting this.
> >
> > I've removed the ODE systems idea from the ideas page as it has been
> > mostly sorted out by Mil
Thanks Aaron for sorting this.
I've removed the ODE systems idea from the ideas page as it has been
mostly sorted out by Milan Jolly last year. There is still work to do
but it is not such a high priority after Milan's work.
The change to 175hrs which is basically 5 actual weeks which places
ow what are the next steps for me to do in order to
> get my implementation into sympy. This is my first time contributing so
> detailed explanation would be really helpful.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 18 February 2021 at 18:28:38 UTC+2 oscar.gu...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Den tors 18
I agree that this should be changed in sympy itself. It is just a case that
someone needs to do the work for this. It's not just about disabling the
evaluation because then there are potentially other parts of the codebase
that might subtly break if evaluation does not happen. I would investigate
gt;>
>>> simplify_linear_inequalities gets a set of linear inequalities and returns
>>> a simplified set (redundant inequalities are removed).
>>>
>>> Now I would like to know what are the next steps for me to do in order to
>>> get my implementation into sympy
There are some useful things that you can do with zoo like:
In [1]: 1/zoo
Out[1]: 0
If it weren't for things like this then I think exceptions would
always be better.
--
Oscar
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 22:49, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> Complex infinity is a mathematically meaningful object, and
On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 11:07, Paul Royik wrote:
> I want to parse logic implication `p->q`. What should I add to
> global_dict, so that parse_expr parsed it?
>
> I know, that SymPy doesn't have and Implication class. I will create it by
> myself, but `global_dict = {'->': Implication}` doesn't
I think when you've merged with master a few times already it gets
fiddly to do anything other than what Chris suggests. The rebase can
be worth it if there was a clean commit history but if you're
squashing then you can just do it the direct way.
I would do this like:
$ git checkout mybranch
$
On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 21:33, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 1:59 PM gu...@uwosh.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> > I want to second Aaron's comment. Please just use
`sympy.init_session(auto_int_to_Integer=True)` if you want that behavior.
As a scientist who uses python to process large
On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 22:27, Aaron Meurer wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 3:04 PM Oscar Benjamin
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 21:33, Aaron Meurer wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 1:59 PM gu...@uwosh.edu
> wrote:
> > > &g
Welcome Joannah!
Looking forward to working with you...
Oscar
On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 20:48, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> I am happy to announce that we have hired Joannah Nanjekye for Google
> Season of Docs 2021. Joannah will be working over the next 5 months on
> improving the
On Thu, 13 May 2021 at 10:02, Davide Sandona'
wrote:
> Hello Ryan,
>
> # HERE - Is there a less awkward way to evaluate the scalar field at a
>> # given vector?
>>
>
> Not that I'm aware of. I would have done the same intricate loop that you
> did.
> Note that you were "lucky": if your gp vector
You can use noqa like:
$ git grep _eval_is_ge
sympy/calculus/util.py:def _eval_is_ge(lhs, rhs): # noqa:F811
sympy/calculus/util.py:def _eval_is_ge(lhs, rhs): # noqa: F811
sympy/calculus/util.py:def _eval_is_ge(lhs, rhs): # noqa:F811
sympy/calculus/util.py:def _eval_is_ge(lhs, rhs): # noqa:F811
; >>> find_values_interval gets a set of linear inequalities and a target
>> >>> expression (expr) and returns an interval of [min possible value for
>> >>> expr, max possible value for expr].
>> >>>
>> >>> simplify_linear_inequalities gets a set of linear ine
How do the op counts get into the tens or hundreds of thousands?
When the expressions are that complicated I would have thought that it
was faster and more numerically accurate to perform whatever symbolic
operations are used to obtain those expressions using numerical
routines. For example if a
On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 18:00, Davide Sandona' wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for sharing. Do you think this is something you'd like to
>> see integrated into SymPy's plotting module eventually?
>
> I think it would benefit a lot of users, but it's too soon to talk about
> integration because I'm still
Hi Aaron,
I would go with "Organization of Documentation" as the most important.
We need to get it organised so that there is a clear distinction
between user functions vs internals and so that there are good
cross-references to explanatory guides etc. We definitely need
high-level docs but at
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 23:58, S.Y. Lee wrote:
>
> I was not very fond for defining sympy Add, Mul, Pow or Function application
> for equation object because I don't think that the algebra of equation looks
> well unifiable with other mathematical objects like Expr at the first glance,
> And I
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 20:24, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 6:47 AM David Bailey wrote:
>>
>> On 10/02/2021 00:53, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 23:58, S.Y. Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>> And we would also arri
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 20:47, Michał Pawłowski
wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I have such problem.
>
> I've created py file:
>
> #!/usr/bin/python3
>
> from sympy import *
> x = Symbol('x')
> print(expand(sin(x)*(x-1)*(x+1)))
>
> When it is inside of SymPy lib dir, it returns correct result in console.
>
Do you particularly want to use the master version of sympy from git?
It's usually better to use the latest release (currently 1.7.1) unless
you are planning to work on making changes to sympy itself.
You can install the latest release by running e.g "pip install sympy"
(or "conda install sympy"
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 11:19, Thomas Ligon wrote:
>
> "The solution to this in Python is to use lists or tuples or some other
> container rather than raw variables. For example:
>
> x = symbols('x:10')"
>
> Based on that, and
> Core — SymPy 1.7.1 documentation
>
> a = symbols('a:2*maxIter+1')
>
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 12:45, Naveen Saisreenivas Thota
wrote:
>
> I have some doubts regarding Algorithm 11. Please help me understand them -
...
>
> Lastly, finding the coefficient vectors requires Laurent Series expansion.
> I'm not sure if the series module can achieve this. There seems to
On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 19:51, Paul Royik wrote:
>
> This is a code for fuzzy_and:
> rv = True
> for ai in args:
> ai = fuzzy_bool(ai)
> if ai is False:
> return False
> if rv: # this will stop updating if a None is ever trapped
> rv = ai
> return rv
>
> Is there any
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 at 16:47, Naveen Saisreenivas Thota
wrote:
>
> Hi Nijso,
>
> Thanks for linking the report! I'll check it out. I figured out the errors
> in the code. For now, it seems to be working on some examples given in
> Fritz's book and Kovacic's paper. The code is here - Rational
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 08:13, Naveen Saisreenivas Thota
wrote:
>
> Now that a basic Riccati Solver is done, it wouldn't take more than a week or
> two to merge it in the codebase. I'd like to know what all we plan on doing
> as a GSoC project as that would help me prepare the proposal. Like, is
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 10:42, Naveen Saisreenivas Thota
wrote:
>
> > I think you underestimate how much work is involved in really making
> > the implementation robust and complete. Note that it's much better to
> > have a well-tested, complete, efficient implementation of a single
> > algorithm
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 15:43, 'B A' via sympy wrote:
>
> What is described above has worked well for me. But there is a further
> simplification step that I need help with.
>
> I have some long expressions containing terms contain terms which look like
> this example:
> sqrt(4*a**2 +
Hi Jissoo,
I think that the real question is how are we going to refactor the
evaluation code to make it possible to supply an assumptions argument?
At the moment the evaluation is typically in __new__ and no __new__ methods
take an assumptions argument. We can't pass an assumptions argument to
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 19:38, JOSÉ PATRICIO SÁNCHEZ HERNÁNDEZ
wrote:
>
> Hi Oscar
>
> What do we want the finite fields of non-prime order being able to do? just
> the common operations +-*/ and what else besides to has generated element?
>
> Do we want as a extension of the class FiniteField?
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 20:02, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:24 AM JSS95 wrote:
> >
> > In SymPy, we have two ways to get the mathematical property of an object :
> > the old assumptions system and the new assumptions system.
> > With old assumptions system, the property is
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 23:54, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 4:31 PM Oscar Benjamin
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 20:02, Aaron Meurer wrote:
> >
> > If we have the new assumptions call the old and the old call the new
> > then we'r
Hi Patricio,
Being able to compute the Galois group of a polynomial would be nice.
I have no idea how you do that... Are there algorithms for that that
don't require computing expressions for the roots?
Another thing lacking in sympy is an implementation of finite fields
of non-prime order.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 15:05, JSS95 wrote:
>
> Assumptions are used only in ask() and refine(), so __new__() does not need
> to take assumptions. Besides, using new assumption in __new__() will make
> everything extremely slow so I'd say __new__() must not take assumptions.
Agreed
> My idea
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 10:28, 'Bruce Allen' via sympy
wrote:
>
> I have a very basic sympy question, which has me stumped, and am hoping
> that someone here can set me straight. I have an expression for which
> subs() seems to have no effect:
>
> >>> a=Symbol('a', real=True, positive=True)
>
>
Hi all,
It's time to get the next release (1.8) of SymPy out. I have slightly
more time over the next couple of weeks so I want to get this done in
that time.
If you know of any urgent issues then can you please let me know (by
commenting on GitHub ideally or otherwise by replying to this
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 16:39, 'B A' via sympy wrote:
>
> Here is one solution that seems to work. To simplify Z I use Z.replace(Abs,
> MyAbs) with
>
> def MyAbs(x):
> x1=symbols('x1',real=True,positive=True)
> x1 = x.evalf(subs={a:0.573})
> if x1 < 0.0:
> return S(-1)*x
>
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 11:33, Shreyas Sai wrote:
>
> I'd like to know if Risch algorithm for symbolic integration would be a valid
> topic for this year in GSoC, if yes, I'd love to help contribution it.
Hi Shreyas,
That would be a valid topic but not an easy one. Given the amount of
time
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 18:54, Rohan Gupta wrote:
>
> I'm interested in working on numerical integration techniques for functions.
Is this listed on the ideas page somewhere?
In general numerical techniques are out of scope for sympy and should
be implemented in mpmath or numpy/scipy etc. The
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 07:13, JS S wrote:
>
> Aaron, Oscar, please share your idea on this. My recent opinion is:
>
> 1. We need relational predicates (Q.eq) to make inference system work with
> relations. Eq(..., evaluate=False) cannot do this.
Why (briefly) is it not possible for Eq to work
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 19:53, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:43 PM Eric Way wrote:
> > GoSC ideas of my interest: I would love to take the idea "Refactor the ODE
> > module and make it fast", in that I am familiar with ODE and I recognize
> > that code refactoring that
sympy/sympy/wiki/GSoC-Student-Instructions. Also I
> think it was discussed before to remove the step there about writing
> to the mailing list, but it was never done. I think it should be
> removed.
>
> Aaron Meurer
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:58 PM Oscar Benjamin
> w
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 at 07:01, JSS95 wrote:
>
> > Why (briefly) is it not possible for Eq to work here?
>
> That's because inference system in assumptions module requires the boolean
> function as object, not type.
>
> Known facts such as "x being real number implies x being complex number" is
>
Hi all people on the SymPy mailing list,
There are a lot of posts right now on the mailing list from people who
are interested in contributing to SymPy and who are interested in
doing a GSOC project with SymPy which is great. Many of the posts are
asking the same sort of questions though so I
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 at 14:27, Naveen Saisreenivas Thota
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to discuss the project "Integrating factors for second order ODEs".
> First off, is the paper too big for a GSoC project this year since the time
> limit is reduced? If not, even parts of the paper can be
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 at 15:39, Naveen Saisreenivas Thota
wrote:
>
> > There are simpler and more useful algorithms that have not yet been
> > implemented in sympy. In particular the Kovacic algorithm gives
> > solutions for a useful and commonly occurring class of ODEs:
>
> For Kovacic's
On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 at 09:10, Marco Antônio Habitzreuter
wrote:
>
> Hello folks. I hope you and your families are doing well.
>
> I'm a physics undergraduate in my final semester. I have been using Sympy for
> the last 6 months or so, after having some good experiences with Numpy to
> analyze
On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 at 09:27, nijso.be...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
> A couple of ideas for improving the ODE solver capabilities are listed on the
> GSoC project ideas page:
> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/GSoC-Ideas#other-ode-ideas
>
> I propose a roadmap for a (first order) ODE solver that
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 01:01, JSS95 wrote:
>
> Since Eq is a type, I doubt that `Relational(Eq, x, y)` is possible. Such
> structure of representation is required only in the assumptions module so I'd
> say that we don't need to implement that in core right now.
But we could make it so that Eq
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 06:26, Momchil Peychev wrote:
>
> I have the following issue: when I try to create symbols (and by extension
> expressions) in different processes, SymPy somehow does not detect that the
> symbols are the same even though they have the same name and assumptions.
Maybe
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 13:19, Paul Royik wrote:
>
> Is there a difference between checking b.is_zero or b == 0?
Yes, there is.
Checking is_zero is part of the core assumptions system that will run
a bunch of tests to try and determine if the expression is zero or not
and will ultimately return
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 at 10:51, Kartik Sethi wrote:
>
> There is already a PR #21120 which is trying to implement DomainScalar class
> which is why I deleted that message.
Personally I read these messages as an email mailing list so deleting
a message is unnoticeable to me (you can't delete an
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 at 07:48, Kartik Sethi wrote:
>
> S.Y. Lee, in #20987 It is outlined that there is a need to implement a
> DomainScalar class, which would help speed up eigenvector computation.
> I think that would be a more fruitful endeavour instead of working on these
> decompositions.
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 at 20:53, Rahul Manavalan
wrote:
>
> Hello All
>
> Would be realistic at all, to extend the CM library to include fluids as well.
>
> 1. The obvious candidate would be to write a viscous NS equation solver to
> begin with.
Don't assume that others will understand what you
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 at 21:31, Rahul Manavalan
wrote:
>
> I believe that such an extension could be useful to those engineers who are
> looking to secure a ball park figure for the flow parameters for simple
> geometries without resorting to expensive mesh based solvers.
> Usually (atleast where
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 21:18, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> fraction() only takes the numerator and denominator of the top-level
> expression, without doing any simplification. It should be used in
> places where you don't care about subexpressions and want something
> very fast. as_numer_denom()
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 17:48, ARUN V wrote:
>
> hi i am ARUN.V,
> i have three years experience in python
> i am here to build a new library for physics the topic i have took is
> "neuclear physics"
> here i am going to build a library for calculating the output for
>
> Fission.
>
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 08:54, Sayandip Halder wrote:
>
>
>> I have recently made significant performance improvements in linsolve.
>> It would be good to make more use of linsolve in the other solvers.
>
> Do you mean this PR?
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/20780
Yes, and the ones it
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 15:23, nijso.be...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> Hi,
Hi Nijso,
> I implemented the Lie method for second order ODEs in the maxima cas. The
> code for maxima is here :
>
> https://github.com/bigfooted/maxima-odesolve
>
> specific jupyter doc for ode2_lie (best viewed with
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 at 22:23, Sayandip Halder wrote:
>
>
> Your PR #18814 made solve_linear_system() a wrapper for linsolve(). But that
> was later replaced in some PR (which I am unable to find) by solve_lin_sys().
> Why was it changed? Ref: here
At the time it turned out that linsolve was
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 at 20:12, ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ ΣΕΜΕΡΤΖΑΚΗΣ
wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
Hi George,
> My name is George Semertzakis. I have a bachelor degree on Mathematics. I am
> currently a postgraduate student on National and Kapodistrian Univertity of
> Athens. I have strong background in linear
Hi all,
Does anyone use SymPy with Theano?
There is a PR which proposes to drop Theano support in favour of Aesara:
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/21087
The PR looks fine to me but I don't actually know what Theano/Aesara
are. Apparently Theano is no longer actively maintained and Aesara
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 at 13:54, nijso.be...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> I've started with a document:
> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/ODE-solver-roadmap
Yes, that looks good as an overall roadmap. It's written at the level
that I can understand although I'd have to take time at some point to
read
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 at 16:53, Marvin Prakash wrote:
>
> Could someone please help me regarding the further process so that i can
> start contributing.
There is a guid to contributing here:
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/introduction-to-contributing
Oscar
--
You received this message
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 22:01, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> As long as Theano itself still works in versions of Python that SymPy
> supports, it would be better to deprecate the function rather than
> just remove it. The function theano_code is public API so just
> removing it would be a backwards
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 21:40, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 11:58 AM JSS95 wrote:
> >
> > Also, `Q.eq(x, y)` will be able to support algebra between the relational
> > as @sylee957 shared in this comment. `Q.eq(x, 1) + Q.eq(y, 1)` will return
> > `AddSides(Q.eq(x, 1), Q.eq(y,
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 18:58, JSS95 wrote:
>
> 1. Why do we need relation predicates?
>
> There are two design shifts that need to be done across the SymPy codebase.
> First, we need to avoid automatic evaluation, which means `Add(x, x)` should
> return `Add` instance rather than `2*x`. This is
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 20:01, Bruno Nicenboim wrote:
>
> ```
> cset = ConditionSet(t, t < 1/(mu_1 * tau**2)).intersect(ConditionSet(t, t <
> 1/(mu_1 * tau**2)))
> s_x = solveset(K_p - x, t, domain=cset)
> ```
> As follows.
> ```
> Intersection(ConditionSet(t, t < 1/(mu_1*tau**2)), {(-2*mu_1*mu_2
On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 16:00, Kartik Sethi wrote:
>
> Oscar Benjamin, what if someone else also puts up this same proposal to
> improve the DomainMatrix module for Gsoc. How does sympy decide which person
> will work on it.
There is plenty more work to do on DomainMatrix than one
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 13:43, Bruno Nicenboim wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 9:01 PM Oscar Benjamin
> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think your constraints are enough to determine what the
>> correct solution should be. For example if we have the values:
>> {
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 18:08, Bruno Nicenboim wrote:
>
> Hi,
> This is my first email. I'm starting to use sympy, which I find fascinating,
> and I have some questions that couldn't be answered after going through the
> documentation and stackoverflow website.
Hi Bruno and welcome!
Feel free
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 14:20, JSS95 wrote:
>
> I believe that the only disagreement we have here is : given that we
> introduced the relation predicate, do we need to have two different classes
> or do we need to have one class at the cost of breaking backwards
> compatibility?
I think that's
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 17:27, devesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi, I am a software engineer with a undergrad CS background having basic
> familiarity of sympy. I am interested in number theory, basic abstract
> algebra, theory of computation & board game AI. I was looking through the
> ideas page
On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 at 10:38, Kartik Sethi wrote:
>
> I was wondering if completing the tasks listed on
> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/20987 could be a Gsoc proposal.
Some of the things in that list are fairly trivial like "make Matrix
use DomainMatrix for charpoly". The DomainMatrix
On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 at 14:26, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>
> The most useful thing that a GSOC project could do is really just to
> make the whole DomainMatrix class a bit more complete, usable and
> documented so that it's easier for users and future contributors to
> make use of i
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 21:06, Bruno Nicenboim wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 9:53:03 PM UTC+1 Oscar wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 18:08, Bruno Nicenboim wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > This is my first email. I'm starting to use sympy, which I find
>> > fascinating, and I have some
301 - 400 of 710 matches
Mail list logo
