Hi Ondrej,
I fixed the bug with the case `B**2 - 4*A*C` is a perfect square. I added
few
more tests for the case too. I also found a bug in the linear Diophantine
solver.
Previously, It returned a subset of solutions, not the complete solution.
Ex:
>>> diop_solve(2*x - 3*y - 5)
{x: -15*t - 5, y: -10*t - 5}
This is only a subset of the solutions. the correct solution should be
`{x: -3*t - 5, y: -2*t - 5}`. I compared this with Wolfram alpha results
and both the results
can be made identical by a shift of the parameter variable `t`. So I think
now it's fine.
I made a commit. Please take a look at when you are free.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Ondřej Čertík <[email protected]>wrote:
> Thilina,
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Thilina Rathnayake
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ondrej,
> >
> > I implemented the general solution for the Pell equation and I completed
> the
> > implementation of the case B**2 - 4*A*C > 0 in the quadratic Diophantine
> > equation.
> > Now the solutions for quadratic Diophantine equation is almost complete.
> > However,
> > It took more time than I thought.
> >
> > There is a bug when B**2 - 4*A*C is a perfect square. Current
> implementation
> > does not return all the solutions in this case. I added a XFAIL test to
> > reflect this for
> > the time being. I hope to find a fix for this very soon.
> >
> > I made a commit with the new changes. Please take a look at that when you
> > are
> > free.
>
> Awesome, great job. I'll have a look tomorrow.
>
> Ondrej
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Thilina
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Thilina Rathnayake <
> [email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, That's fine with me too. Thanks for the reply Ondrej.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Thilina
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Ondřej Čertík <[email protected]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Thilina Rathnayake
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > There were few notes about it in the paper and I am pretty sure
> >>> > I can find some references for it. If that is the case, is this kind
> of
> >>> > a
> >>> > representation good?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I think the [(220, 61), (40, 11), (768, 213), (12, 3)]
> >>> representation is very good.
> >>>
> >>> Then your other function takes this and returns the general solution
> >>> in terms of "n", once you implement it.
> >>>
> >>> Ondrej
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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.
> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > 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.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
