Fine by me. Will enter SymPy room around 22:00 on Monday.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Gilbert Gede <[email protected]> wrote: > Monday (10:00) for me works. How about we all log onto IRC at that time, > and decide where to work/discuss then? > > -Gilbert > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Prasoon Shukla > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Monday is good for me. I will be done with the project by Saturday night. >> Time for the meet doesn't matter mostly for me; I can stay awake late or >> wake up early according to the time required. Sachin will need to give his >> opinion on this though. >> >> But yes, that particular time suits me quite nicely. >> (Btw, the time all across India is the same : +5:30 GMT, no daylight >> savings either) >> >> >> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Stefan Krastanov < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I know that Prasoon still has some academic responsibilities at home. >>> When he is ready it would be great if the four of us (Gilbert, Prasoon, >>> Sachin and me) can meet on the mailing list (or maybe a "realtime wiki" >>> like piratepad.net while we are discussing the api). >>> >>> Is Sunday or Monday ok for all of you? The time difference between San >>> Francisco and India is 12 hours, so it will be somewhat hard to schedule. >>> What about this: >>> >>> - 09:00 or 10:00 in San Francisco (Gilbert) (Is this the correct >>> timezone?), >>> >>> - 18:00 or 19:00 in Brussels (me), >>> >>> - 21:30 or 22:30 in India (Prasoon and Sachin) (I do not know your >>> exact timezones) >>> >>> http://time.is/compare/0900_2_June_2013_in_San_Francisco/Brussels/India >>> >>> >>> >>> On 31 May 2013 12:14, Stefan Krastanov <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> # Concerning the charge densities >>>> >>>> I think you are doing it a bit backwards. Both the electric field and >>>> the charge density are scalar fields. I do not see the need for a class >>>> like ScalarPotential or ChargeDensity when for both of them you can use >>>> ScalarField. Moreover, I think it is just wrong to use ScalarPotential to >>>> represent a density of charge. >>>> >>>> For instance something like this (if you want the superposition of an >>>> external field and a field created by some charge density): >>>> >>>> density = >>>> ScalarField(some_expression_defining_the_field_in_certain_coords) >>>> potential_internal = Laplacian(density) >>>> potential_external = ScalarFeild(another_expression) >>>> final_potential = potential_internal + potential_external >>>> .... stuff done with final_potential >>>> >>>> In CS terms, what I am saying is that you should not create new `types` >>>> and your module should not be strongly typed. >>>> >>>> It would be nice if some more CS-oriented people can comment on the >>>> above (Ronan possibly?) >>>> >>>> # Concerning degenerate distributions >>>> >>>> It would be great if we can switch from `ParametricRegion` to scalar >>>> field containing delta functions: >>>> >>>> for instance if the coordinates are r, phi in 2D a circle is both >>>> >>>> ParametricRegion(R*sin(phi), R*cos(phi)) >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> DiracDelta(r-R) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
