Probably not the way it is now (though I could be wrong), but it could be a useful feature. So perhaps open an issue for it.
Aaron Meurer On Friday, March 30, 2012, Matthew Rocklin wrote: > I'm interested in developing an assumptions system for matrices. This > would have predicates like symmetric, singular, orthogonal, etc.... > > I've looked through the current assumptions system (and a little bit > through pull 1162). From this I'm able to create matrix assumptions by > adding to the files in sympy/assumptions. I create a new directory for > matrix handlers (a la sets, ntheory, calculus) and I add new predicates to > Q in ask.py. > > This doesn't feel right though, I'm mixing two different assumption > systems into one set of files. For example Q now has two disjoint sets of > predicates. What is the right way to do things? Is there a clean way to > instantiate a new module specific assumptions system? > > -Matt > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:_e({}, > 'cvml', '[email protected]');> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'sympy%[email protected]');>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en. > -- Sent from my iPad. -- 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.
