Hi,
Arihant thanks for those suggestions, I guess if rule name contains 
Algebraic then just

*>>> def rule_algebraic_integrand_1_1(expr, symbol)*

would suffice, no need for >>>*def rule_algebraic_integrand_1_1_1_1(expr, 
symbol)*  (indicating algebraic integrand>linear product>(a + b*x)**m). 
Yes, this way the functions would be named in a systematic way, necessarily 
supported by a docstring which would explain those rules in details, as 
Aaron pointed.

Pattern matching used in manualintegrate() is a simple one without a 
decision tree and hence less efficient. The tree for (a + b*x)**m would be 
better represented as
 Pow(Add(a, Mul(b, x)), m), well explained in #7748 
<https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/7748>.


On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 3:36:30 PM UTC+5:30, Arihant Parsoya wrote:
>
> Thanks Aaron,
>
> I read the discussion <https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/7748> to 
> improve pattern matching algorithm. Can you give some information about 
> which algorithm is currently being used for pattern matching? 
>
> I have been testing `match()` to check if it works properly for complex 
> expressions. It gives correct answer if we `exclude` the integration 
> variable. However, there can be issues in matching expression when brackets 
> are automatically evaluated by SymPy:
>
> >>> x, y, z, F, fx = symbols('x, y, z, F, fx')
>
> >>> a = Wild('a', exclude=[x])
>
> >>> b = Wild('b', exclude=[x])
>
> >>> c = Wild('c', exclude=[x])
>
> >>> d = Wild('d', exclude=[x])
>
> >>> e = Wild('e', exclude=[x])
>
> >>> f = Wild('f', exclude=[x])
>
> >>> g = Wild('g', exclude=[x])
>
> >>> p = Wild('p', exclude=[x])
>
> >>> n = Wild('n', exclude=[x])
>
> >>> m = Wild('m', exclude=[x])
>
> >>> expr = ((1 + 2*x)**3) * ((F**(4*(5 + fx)))**6) * (6 + 7*(F**(4*(5 + 
> fx))))**8
>
> >>> pattern = ((c + d*x)**m) * ((F**(g*(e + fx)))**n) * (a + b*(F**(g*(e + 
> fx))))**p
>
> >>> pprint(pattern)
>
>                    p                         n
>
> ⎛ g⋅(fx + e)      ⎞           m ⎛ g⋅(fx + e)⎞ 
>
> ⎝F          ⋅b + a⎠ ⋅(x⋅d + c) ⋅⎝F          ⎠ 
>
> >>> pprint(expr)
>
>                                8           
>
>  24⋅fx + 120 ⎛   4⋅fx + 20    ⎞           3
>
> F           ⋅⎝7⋅F          + 6⎠ ⋅(2⋅x + 1) 
>
> >>> expr.match(pattern)
>
> {p_: 1, g_: 1, m_: 3, d_: 2, n_: 0, e_: 23*fx + 120, c_: 1, a_: 0, b_: 
> (7*F**(4*fx + 20) + 6)**8}
>
>
> We need to find a way to convert the expresison into known standard form 
> so pattern matching can be done peoperly or implement such functionality in 
> `.match()` itself.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 12:16:41 AM UTC+5:30, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>>
>> That's sounds fine, though it should also include a docstring that lists 
>> the rule so we don't have to depend on the Rubi site. This will also let us 
>> generate some documentation on what rules are supported. 
>>
>> We will likely want to extend the rules beyond what Rubi has eventually, 
>> so we should also consider that. 
>>
>> Aaron Meurer 
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:07 PM Arihant Parsoya <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, 
>>>
>>> I observed that rules in manualintegrate() are countable in number. 
>>> While implementing ~7000 rules, naming each rule is also going to be a big 
>>> issue. I was thinking, names should be given based on the serial number of 
>>> the rule in Rubi 
>>> <http://www.apmaths.uwo.ca/%7Earich/IntegrationRules/PortableDocumentFiles/PortableDocumentFiles.html>
>>>  
>>> website. For example algebric rules for linear products 
>>> <http://www.apmaths.uwo.ca/%7Earich/IntegrationRules/PortableDocumentFiles/1%20Algebraic%20functions/1%20Linear%20products/1.1%20(a+b%20x)%5Em.pdf>
>>>  
>>> should be named as:
>>>
>>> >>> def rule_algebric_integrand_1_1_1_1(expr, symbol):
>>>
>>> ...     return log(expr)
>>>
>>> Using the above syntax for names of rules, we will be able to uniquely 
>>> identify each rule. Is this desirable?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Arihant Parsoya
>>>
>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 10:44:41 PM UTC+5:30, Abdullah Javed Nesar 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was looking into sympy.integrals.manualintegrate.py it seems that 
>>>> the pattern matching (in manualintegrate) is quite different from what is 
>>>> expected in Rubi. As PR #7748 
>>>> <https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/7748> mentions we'll be using a 
>>>> better approach using decision tree, can you elaborate on what is 
>>>> expected? 
>>>> How decision tree concludes to a rule of integration then falls into 
>>>> function integrate() which contains rules like 1.1.1 (a + b*x)**m 
>>>> <http://www.apmaths.uwo.ca/~arich/IntegrationRules/PortableDocumentFiles/1%20Algebraic%20functions/1%20Linear%20products/1.1%20(a+b%20x)%5Em.pdf>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Abdullah Javed Nesar 
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:59:38 AM UTC+5:30, Aaron Meurer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> integrate() uses several algorithms, and one or more algorithms may 
>>>>> apply to any specific integral. Some algorithms, if you know how they 
>>>>> work, you can easily see if they won't apply to a specific integrand. 
>>>>> The best way to tell how it works for a specific integral is to check 
>>>>> the various algorithms. Another thing that I highly suggest is to run 
>>>>> the integrate() function through a debugger, so you can see how it 
>>>>> works (I like PuDB, but any debugger that you are comfortable with 
>>>>> will work). 
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are the algorithms used by integrate() (I hope I didn't forget 
>>>>> any).  You can import each algorithm from the specified module to try 
>>>>> it 
>>>>>
>>>>> sympy.integrals.risch.risch_integrate() - Risch algorithm. Currently 
>>>>> only works for transcendental equations with exp() and log(). 
>>>>>
>>>>> sympy.integrals.manualintegrate.manualintegrate() - Manual 
>>>>> integration. That means, integration akin to how you would do things 
>>>>> by hand. This is very similar to Rubi in that it does pattern matching 
>>>>> against some rules. Ideally any implementation of Rubi would merge 
>>>>> with manualintegrate() so we don't have two pattern matching 
>>>>> integrators. 
>>>>>
>>>>> sympy.integrals.trigonometry.trigintegrate() - Integrate trig 
>>>>> functions. Also uses pattern matching. 
>>>>>
>>>>> sympy.integrals.rationaltools.ratint() - Integrate rational functions. 
>>>>>
>>>>> sympy.integrals.meijerint.meijerg_definite() and 
>>>>> sympy.integrals.meijerint.meijerg_indefinite() - Integration using the 
>>>>> Meijer G algorithm (roughly, by translating the integral to a Meijer 
>>>>> G-function, integrating, then translating back). 
>>>>>
>>>>> sympy.integrals.heurisch.heurisch() - The heuristic Risch algorithm. 
>>>>> This is tried last, because it can be very slow (sometimes hanging the 
>>>>> integrator), but there are cases where only it can produce an answer. 
>>>>>
>>>>> You should be able to apply any of these functions directly on an 
>>>>> integrand to see if they can produce an answer. 
>>>>>
>>>>> The algorithms are tried in order until one gives an answer. I don't 
>>>>> remember exactly what order, but I think it's similar to the above. I 
>>>>> do know that heurisch() is last, because it's the worst. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Aaron Meurer 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Abdullah Javed Nesar 
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: 
>>>>> > Hi Aaron, 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Thanks for your explanation. 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > How does SymPy evaluates integrals like, 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> >>>integrate((a + b*u)**m, x) when u = c + dx  (i.e. Integration by 
>>>>> >>> substitution) 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > I couldn't find such an example can give one? 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Abdullah Javed Nesar 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 11:58:20 AM UTC+5:30, Aaron Meurer 
>>>>> wrote: 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> The SymPy assumptions system lets you define x = Symbol('x', 
>>>>> >> positive=True) (and query like x.is_positive). The pattern matcher 
>>>>> >> will need to be able to set and define restrictions like this. Also 
>>>>> >> note that expand_log() and logcombine() already expand and combine 
>>>>> >> logarithms and check the domain restrictions. 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> Another thing is that the integrator should return a Piecewise 
>>>>> >> whenever possible. For example, the current integrator: 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> In [6]: integrate(x**n, x) 
>>>>> >> Out[6]: 
>>>>> >> ⎧log(x)  for n = -1 
>>>>> >> ⎪ 
>>>>> >> ⎪ n + 1 
>>>>> >> ⎨x 
>>>>> >> ⎪──────  otherwise 
>>>>> >> ⎪n + 1 
>>>>> >> ⎩ 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> This way we get results that are mathematically correct, even when 
>>>>> >> assumptions aren't set. 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> Aaron Meurer 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Abdullah Javed Nesar 
>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: 
>>>>> >> > Hi Ondřej, 
>>>>> >> > 
>>>>> >> > I am willing to work on Rubi Integrator this summer. I went 
>>>>> through the 
>>>>> >> > issues you raised for this project and this idea really sounds 
>>>>> cool. It 
>>>>> >> > would be great to segregate the different methods of integration 
>>>>> into a 
>>>>> >> > decision tree which would hence improve its performance. 
>>>>> >> > 
>>>>> >> > Before implementing Rule-based integrator we need to implement 
>>>>> fast 
>>>>> >> > pattern 
>>>>> >> > matching/replacement for the set of 10,000 rules so we need to 
>>>>> plan out 
>>>>> >> > an 
>>>>> >> > efficient decision tree for it. 
>>>>> >> > 
>>>>> >> > log(x*y) -> log(x) + log(y);   x > 0, y > 0 
>>>>> >> > 
>>>>> >> > 
>>>>> >> > In the above example how do we exactly move on with domain 
>>>>> restrictions 
>>>>> >> > (i.e. x, y). 
>>>>> >> > 
>>>>> >> > On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 8:39:41 PM UTC+5:30, Ondřej Čertík 
>>>>> wrote: 
>>>>> >> >> 
>>>>> >> >> Hi, 
>>>>> >> >> 
>>>>> >> >> Here is a project that I would love to see happen: 
>>>>> >> >> 
>>>>> >> >> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/12233 
>>>>> >> >> 
>>>>> >> >> I am available to mentor it, and I think quite a few people are 
>>>>> >> >> excited about it and such a system/framework (i.e. set of rules 
>>>>> for 
>>>>> >> >> patter matching + compiler to generate a fast if/then/else 
>>>>> decision 
>>>>> >> >> tree) would have applications beyond just integration, but 
>>>>> integration 
>>>>> >> >> would already be super useful. As you can browse on Rubi web 
>>>>> page, the 
>>>>> >> >> integrator's capabilities are very impressive, i.e. the rule 
>>>>> based 
>>>>> >> >> system Rubi 4.9 can do more integrals than Mathematica, and is 
>>>>> about 
>>>>> >> >> as fast, due to the large number of rules, and the if/then/else 
>>>>> >> >> decision tree Rubi 5 promises an order of magnitude (or more) 
>>>>> speedup, 
>>>>> >> >> but it's still in development. 
>>>>> >> >> 
>>>>> >> >> The project is big in scope, so there could even be multiple 
>>>>> projects. 
>>>>> >> >> If anybody is interested in this, please get in touch, and try 
>>>>> to 
>>>>> >> >> propose a good plan. 
>>>>> >> >> 
>>>>> >> >> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sympy. 
>>>>> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>>>> >> > 
>>>>> >> > 
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/05a4ee3e-7a0b-485b-9918-0a68bb4f3350%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/0cc84418-0eac-4ab2-b975-c74eeec47d64%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/8efee19b-fedd-4188-b00f-e68ecf288eb5%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/8efee19b-fedd-4188-b00f-e68ecf288eb5%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>> 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/2d630a6a-15da-42fb-9221-860fe7912307%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to