> There is reason to believe that the two G in front should result in > -1/4. At this point the algorithm seems to be incomplete ...
To justify this reason I should post this too: In [75]: hyperexpand(G1, allow_hyper=True) Out[75]: meijerg(((1,), (3,)), ((2,), (0,)), -1) In [76]: hyperexpand(G2, allow_hyper=True) Out[76]: 1/2 In [77]: hyperexpand(G3, allow_hyper=True) Out[77]: meijerg(((3, 1), ()), ((), (2, 0)), -1) In [78]: hyperexpand(G4, allow_hyper=True) Out[78]: 0 In [79]: G1.evalf(n=50) Out[79]: 0.50000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 In [80]: G2.evalf(n=50) Out[80]: 0.50000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 In [81]: G3.evalf(n=50) Out[81]: 0 In [82]: G4.evalf(n=50) Out[82]: 0 In [83]: -G1/2 + G2/2 - G3/2 + G4/2 Out[83]: -meijerg(((1,), (3,)), ((2,), (0,)), -1)/2 + meijerg(((1,), (3,)), ((2,), (0,)), 1)/2 - meijerg(((3, 1), ()), ((), (2, 0)), -1)/2 + meijerg(((3, 1), ()), ((), (2, 0)), 1)/2 In [85]: _.evalf(n=50) Out[85]: 0.e-160 -- 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.
