On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:07 AM, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> My comments:
>
>> I will be using/modifying experimental_lambdify str2tree for parsing the 
>> expression.
>
> What do you mean by this? Can you give a very precise example? Do you
> mean that you want to return a True/False answer for the inequality,
> because this already works:
>
> In [1]: from sympy.plotting.experimental_lambdify import experimental_lambdify
> In [3]: f = experimental_lambdify([x,y], x<y)
> In [4]: f(1,1)
> Out[4]: False
> In [5]: f(1,2)
> Out[5]: True
>
> A more complicated one:
> In [15]: f = experimental_lambdify([x,y], x<integrate(1/sin(z), (z,0.1,y)))
> In [16]: f(1,1.1)
> Out[16]: True
>
> And a complication:
> In [17]: f(1,2)
> Out[17]:
>
>  log(cos(2) + 1)
>        log(-1 + cos(2))
> - ─────────────── + 2.99489845376757 - 0.5⋅ⅈ⋅π + ──────────────── > 1
>         2
>               2
>
>
>
>>  During the initial stages, when I am not using my extended interval 
>> arithmetic library, I will be using lambdify for my evaluations.
>
> But if it works with lambdify, why do you need interval arithmetics? I
> understand that my question is stupid by I really do not know the
> answer.
>
>> When I start using my extended interval arithmetic library I will modify 
>> experimental_lambdify to evaluate functions differently( call the functions 
>> in Interval Arithmetic class).
>
> That would be great.
>
>> The recursion goes on till we reach to a block size of 1 pixel.
>
> Neither matplotlib nor svgfig nor any other high-level plotting
> backend works well with points. Moreover, plotting points in svg will
> be hard (you need rectangles, and not points if you wish to have
> something useful for zooming). The one and only option that I see is
> to use 2D numpy arrays and then matplotlib.showimage (and you will
> have to reimplement this for svgfig). The plotting module that I have
> written already depends on numpy so this will not limit the usability
> any further. If someone wants to run this without numpy he can always
> create a simple class emulating np arrays in lists.
>
>> Subpixel Computation probes into regions inside the pixel and decides 
>> whether the pixel has to be included.
>
> Same comment as above.
>
>> Interval Arithmetic
>
> More detailed examples of the class structure will be useful. Why do
> you prefer to write the code twice (for mpmath and numpy) instead of
> writing it directly in sympy. The reason of performance (which is a
> very good reason) comes to mind, but on the other hand whatever you
> write will be very hard to maintain. I think it would be better to
> write it in sympy and then fix the places where evalf is slow.
>
> An argument against that is that mpi already does part of the work.
> But you still have much to add. And you also want to repeat all this
> for numpy.
>
> You have thought about this more than I have, so maybe your plan is
> better. It is just still unclear to me what exactly will you
> implement.
>
> Maybe it will be more productive to focus on mpi interval arithmetics
> and leave numpy out. And it will be great if the mpi stuff is sent
> upstream. Have you already contacted them?
>
>> svgfig Backend
>
> You speak about using numpy because GAE and other reasons, but
> actually you do not have a choice. The plotting module depends
> (although very loosely) on numpy. Evaluations are done in lambdify
> which may or may not use numpy, but at the end the results are stored
> in numpy arrays. On the other hand, creating a small class emulating
> numpy arrays in list will be useful.

The AppEngine now supports numpy, so this is no longer an issue.

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.

Reply via email to