Le dimanche 24 avril 2011 à 06:56 +0545, Chris Smith a écrit :
> Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
> > On 22 Apr., 16:53, "Chris Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I don't think we should get hung up on the fact that a set of
> >> solutions should be returned as a literal set. How that set gets
> >> represented/presented is just an interface issue. I don't see
> >> anything wrong with presenting the set as elements in a list. The
> >> list representation also allows for unambiguous, non-redundant
> >> representation of the symbols and their values. And look at how easy
> >> it is to make a replacement dictionary from a list as compared to a
> >> dictionary...and I challenge anyone to try do the same with a set in
> >> as compact a fashion:
> >
> >> h[4] >>> l=[(x,y),(1,2),(3,4)]
> >
> > You could use as well set([...]) here. There is no reason IMHO to use
> > a list.
>
> In the list, that is a literal x and y -- symbols. That's what makes
> the list less noisy: you get the symbols once, right at the start, and
> then all the solutions. The dictionary is just too busy with redundant
> symbols. Easy to use, hard to look at.
But you know the symbols anyway since you just used them to get the list
of solutions. So what's wrong with:
>>> variables = symbols('x y', real=True)
>>> equation = ((x-1)**2 + (y-2)**2)*((x-3)**2 + (y-4)**2)
>>> solutions = solve(equation, variables)
>>> solutions
{(1, 2), (3, 4)}
>>> [dict(zip(variables solution)) for solution in solutions]
[{x: 1, y: 2}, {x: 3, y: 4}]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
