For whatever reason the problem is no longer around (maybe I was confused before)?
all tests pass I've changed the behavior of Interval.evalf() to produce an Interval with evalf'ed endpoints rather than produce a multi-precision- interval. It doesn't seem to break anything. reduce_poly_inequalities computes things a bit differently now. If anyone is interested it's in pull https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/355 -Matt On May 24, 9:10 pm, Matthew <[email protected]> wrote: > My problem seems to be different from what is discussed in the issue. > I'm succeeding in interactive mode but not when run from the shell. > I'm also dealing with tests, not doctests. > > My process is fishy though. I'm opening up either isympy or ipython > and then "run"ing the test to get all of the test_functions and then > running them individually. Lots of things pass that don't when I run > bin/test > > -Matt > > On May 24, 8:50 pm, "Aaron S. Meurer" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 24, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Matthew wrote: > > > > Cool. I'm going ahead with the changes. I'm currently blocking on the > > > reduce_poly_inequalities function. > > > It assumes that it's dealing with a list of Intervals which it then > > > will return or turn into a relational. I have generalized this > > > as_relational process to all sets but am having difficulty when it > > > needs to create sets with inexact arithmetic. > > > > This python file has a special interval_evalf function used just for > > > this one case which makes new intervals with evaluated numbers rather > > > than exact ones. i.e. > > > Interval(interval.left.evalf(), interval.right.evalf() ) > > > > I don't want to make a union_evalf , finiteset_evalf, etc... but if I > > > push this into a ._eval_evalf method then I'll end up overwriting the > > > existing Interval._eval_evalf method which seems to be creating > > > multiprecision intervals which are used for some other purpose. > > > > I guess I'm not sure exactly why the inexact bits are needed. When I > > > remove this functionality it doesn't seem to break any tests. I'm not > > > knowledgeable enough to know if this is important or not. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Also, unrelated question. There are some tests which fail when I run > > > bin/test but which pass when I run them from ipython or isympy. I > > > suspect this is just something screwy with how I have things set up. > > > Sound familiar to anyone? > > > > -Matt > > > Is it this issue:http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1379? > > > Aaron Meurer > > > > On May 24, 7:50 pm, Mateusz Paprocki <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Hi, > > > >> On 24 May 2011 17:42, Aaron S. Meurer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> Hi. > > > >>> On May 24, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Matthew Rocklin wrote: > > > >>>> Hi Everyone, > > > >>>> I'm revamping Sets a bit as a precursor to my GSoC project. The first > > >>> part of this is creating a FiniteSet object to go along with Intervals > > >>> (like > > >>> (0, 1] ) and Unions (like [-1,0) U (0, 1] ). > > > >>>> I changed the default behavior of Interval(1,1) (interval from 1 to 1 > > >>> inclusive, i.e. [1, 1] ) to be just the FiniteSet {1} . > > > >>>> Unfortunately it appears that Interval(a,a) has been used extensively > > >>>> in > > >>> the inequalities module for things like > > > >>>> reduce_poly_inequalities([[Eq(x**2, 1)]], x, relational=False) == > > >>> [Interval(-1,-1), Interval(1, 1)] > > > >>>> My code changes the result to the FiniteSet {-1, 1} which I think makes > > >>> more sense. I'm a little uneasy about going in and changing this much in > > >>> modules with which I have little experience. Are people ok with this? Is > > >>> there anyone I should converse with while dealing with this particular > > >>> problem? (someone involved in inequalities) > > > >>>> Best, > > >>>> -Matt > > > >>> So first off, you should run the tests. If they still pass, then it > > >>> means > > >>> that the code still works. This is why we have tests. > > > >>> In this particular case, I think it's fine. That probably would have > > >>> used > > >>> a finite set anyway, if they had existed at the time. Mateusz wrote > > >>> this > > >>> code, so he could tell you more. But I personally am +1 to making > > >>> Interval(a, a) return FiniteSet(a). > > > >> That should work fine, but as Aaron said, change this run tests and see > > >> what > > >> it the outcome. > > > >>> Aaron Meurer > > > >>> -- > > >>> 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. > > > >> Mateusz > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en. -- 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.
