How can I resolve "Inconsistent assumptions"? Any techniques how to find
what exactly is inconsistent?
File "sympy/assumptions/satask.py", line 44, in satask
raise ValueError("Inconsistent assumptions")
ValueError: Inconsistent assumptions
I know what rules cause inconsistency, but I can't understand why
Example:
class CheckSquareMatrix(UnevaluatedOnFree):
def apply(self):
r, c = self.expr.shape
return Equivalent(self.args[0], r == c)
class CheckEmptyMatrix(UnevaluatedOnFree):
def apply(self):
return Equivalent(self.args[0], self.expr.shape == (0, 0))
class CheckOneByOneMatrix(UnevaluatedOnFree):
def apply(self):
return Equivalent(self.args[0], self.expr.shape == (1, 1))
(MatrixExpr, CheckSquareMatrix(Q.square)),
(MatrixExpr, CheckOneByOneMatrix(Q.diagonal)),
(MatrixExpr, CheckEmptyMatrix(Q.zero)),
(MatrixExpr, Implies(Q.zero & Q.square, Q.diagonal)),
(MatrixExpr, Implies(Q.diagonal, Q.symmetric)),
(ZeroMatrix, Q.zero),
(Identity, Q.diagonal),
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 1:59:10 PM UTC-8, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>
> And a final thought, empty square and 1x1 matrices have multiple
> trivial facts. So probably having EmptySquareMatrix and OneByOneMatrix
> classes would be useful. I don't know if my Shape idea would be used
> other than for them. This is basically your original idea, except I
> think it would be useful to separate them out, since some more things
> are true about empty matrices than 1x1 matrices (just glancing at the
> existing facts, integer_elements and real_elements both apply, and if
> we ever add some kind of Q.elements(fact) meta-predicate for matrices,
> that would also apply by vacuous truth).
>
> Aaron Meurer
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Aaron Meurer <[email protected]
> <javascript:>> wrote:
> > Actually, using Eq for tuples seems problematic as well. Maybe just
> > something like ShapeEq((1, 1)), so the fact would be
> >
> > Implies(ShapeEq((1, 1)) | ShapeEq((0, 0)), Q.diagonal)
> >
> > That's just one idea. There's lots of ways you can equivalently write
> > the same thing. The goal is to make abstractions that make the facts
> > as readable as possible.
> >
> > Aaron Meurer
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Aaron Meurer <[email protected]
> <javascript:>> wrote:
> >> That looks good, although I might try to go for something more general.
> >> Maybe we just need a Shape class that we can combine with Eq, like
> Eq(Shape,
> >> (1, 1)) where Shape(A) evaluates as the shape of A. It wouldn't really
> be a
> >> predicate, though, so maybe some more thought is needed here.
> >>
> >> Aaron Meurer
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:35 PM Andrey Torba <[email protected]
> <javascript:>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Aaron, what should be done in order to add new sat handlers?
> >>>
> >>> I'm thinking where to start from? sympy/assumptions/sathandlers.py:
> >>>
> >>> class IsEmptyOr1x1(UnevaluatedOnFree):
> >>>
> >>> def apply(self):
> >>> return Equivalent(self.args[0], self.expr.shape == (0, 0) or
> >>> self.expr.shape == (1, 1))
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> for klass, fact in [
> >>> ...
> >>> (MatrixExpr, IsEmptyOr1x1(Q.diagonal)),
> >>> (MatrixExpr, Implies(Q.diagonal, Q.symmetric)),
> >>> ...
> >>> ]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 4:04:57 PM UTC-8, Aaron Meurer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a downside of the handlers system. The deductions aren't made
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> based on facts that the handlers return. This is one of the main
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> deficiencies that the satask/sathandlers system tries to fix. I don't
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> know if there's an easy fix to make it work in the handlers system.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You could also manually modify the SymmetricHandler class to check
> for
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> diagonal (this is obviously annoying, because it blatantly duplicates
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> the general fact in get_known_facts
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/blob/5827cafb1e1840915b3e7c9f62cd0d58fff9fc48/sympy/assumptions/ask.py#L1517).
>
>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The better way to fix it is to implement it in the sathandlers
> system.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No matrix stuff is implemented there yet, so it may require some
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ground work.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Aaron Meurer
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Andrey Torba <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > I'm working on the pull request.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > A 1x1 matrix is always diagonal. Diagonal implies symmetric. I have
> >>>> > fixed
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > AskDiagonalHandler such that this assertion pass:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > V1 = MatrixSymbol('V1', 2, 1)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > V2 = MatrixSymbol('V2', 2, 1)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > expr = V1.T*(V1 + V2)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > assert ask(Q.diagonal(expr)) is True
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > Now I assume that inference module will deduce that this expression
> is
> >>>> > also
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > symmetric (since the expression is diagonal):
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > assert ask(Q.symmetric(expr)) is True # it is
> None!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > It returns None. Is anything missing? Can you show an example where
> >>>> > this
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > kind of inference works well?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > -Andrey
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sympy.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/d84286f8-9a6f-469b-ac95-4a3c8b21cda2%40googlegroups.com.
>
>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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] <javascript:>.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> <javascript:>.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sympy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
> >>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/1e2b221a-2b4a-48f5-b1dc-44ff6ab0db28%40googlegroups.com.
>
>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sympy.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/0ea41a27-64fb-4dfb-8ad0-bed1472c7b81%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
