Hello everyone, I have made a final draft proposal on "Refactoring the ODE module and make it fast". If someone can please review this and suggest changes so that I can incorporate them accordingly before the GSoC timeline.
link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1slfj2CJRgKpmf0zOW93YkxYUDUvutTmkDX6BmsFfmIs/edit?usp=sharing waiting for the feedback. Thanks. On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 1:55 PM mohit balwani <mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: > +oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com I have made changes you suggested about > refactoring test_ode.py in phase-I. could you please review it again? > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 7:40 PM Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I think it would be better to refactor the tests at the start as in >> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/18377 >> That can significantly increase test coverage which gives more >> confidence when refactoring everything else. It would also make it >> possible to compare timings before and after the refactor. >> >> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 11:51, mohit balwani >> <mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > +oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com can you please review the changes in >> proposal so that i know what i need to make changes in it? >> > On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 10:27:39 PM UTC+5:30, mohit balwani wrote: >> >> >> >> hello, >> >> I have made some changes in project motivation. Does this look good >> or Should I detail that more? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:15 AM Oscar Benjamin < >> oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I think it would be good to spend more time explaining what changes >> >>> you will make and why. >> >>> >> >>> Don't assume that someone reviewing this proposal will understand the >> >>> current problems of the ODE module or why your proposal is beneficial. >> >>> You should make it clear to them what the problems are and how your >> >>> proposed changes will lead to tangible improvements. (This advice >> >>> applies to all GSOC applicants) >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Oscar >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 19:19, mohit balwani >> >>> <mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > Hi, >> >>> > >> >>> > Here is rough draft of my GSoC proposal >> >>> > >> >>> > >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1slfj2CJRgKpmf0zOW93YkxYUDUvutTmkDX6BmsFfmIs/edit?usp=drivesdk >> >>> > >> >>> > Any suggestions would really be appreciated. >> >>> > >> >>> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 9:15 PM Oscar Benjamin < >> oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Hi Mohit, >> >>> >> >> >>> >> You don't need to resend the previous emails. This discussion is >> >>> >> becoming too detailed though and belongs on the Github issue for >> >>> >> refactoring the ODE module: >> >>> >> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/18348 >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Oscar >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 15:26, mohit balwani >> >>> >> <mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > hello, >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > so should I resend the previous mail to the mailing list? >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:59 PM mohit balwani < >> mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> For pattern matching, I kept in mind that we can extract the >> elements of our general solution from the equation with direct matching >> just like First_linear. And for `SingleODESolver` there will be proper >> logic checking whether the given equation matches or not. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> I am a bit confused about how all linear solvers can be based >> on pattern because >> >>> >> >> let's say we want to implement >> `nth_linear_constant_coeff_undetermined_coefficients`. >> >>> >> >> its general equation is >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> a_n f^{(n)}(x) + a_{n-1} f^{(n-1)}(x) + .. + a_1 f'(x) + >> a_0 f(x) = P(x) >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Now p(x) needs to have a finite number of linearly independent >> derivatives and in pattern matching to write general solution we should use >> the extracted elements given by wilds function. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:18 PM Oscar Benjamin < >> oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I think the series solvers should probably have their own >> superclass. >> >>> >> >>> I'd like to move them out of normal dsolve anyway. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Of the others I think that probably all the linear ones can be >> based >> >>> >> >>> on the Pattern solver. You should give a rationale for why you >> have >> >>> >> >>> divided them up like this. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 10:29, mohit balwani >> >>> >> >>> <mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > Hi, >> >>> >> >>> > currently, there are 28 solvers in the ODE module out of >> which 6 solvers have been refactored already. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > I have classified the remaining 22 solvers on the basis of >> their parent class whether they should inherit SinglePatternODESolver or >> SingleODESolver >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > SinglePatternODESolver >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > separable >> >>> >> >>> > separable_reduced >> >>> >> >>> > linear_coefficients >> >>> >> >>> > Liouville >> >>> >> >>> > 2nd_linear_airy >> >>> >> >>> > 2nd_linear_bessel >> >>> >> >>> > 2nd_hypergeometrics >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > SingleODESolver >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > 1st_exact >> >>> >> >>> > 1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_indep_div_dep >> >>> >> >>> > 1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_dep_div_indep >> >>> >> >>> > 1st_power_series >> >>> >> >>> > 2nd_power_series_ordinary >> >>> >> >>> > 2nd_power_series_regular >> >>> >> >>> > nth_linear_constant_coeff_homogeneous >> >>> >> >>> > nth_linear_euler_eq_homogeneous >> >>> >> >>> > nth_linear_constant_coeff_undetermined_coefficients >> >>> >> >>> > nth_linear_euler_eq_nonhomogeneous_undetermined_coefficients >> >>> >> >>> > nth_linear_constant_coeff_variation_of_parameters >> >>> >> >>> > nth_linear_euler_eq_nonhomogeneous_variation_of_parameters >> >>> >> >>> > nth_order_reducible >> >>> >> >>> > 1st_homogeneous_coeff_best ( it just gives the best result >> from "1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_indep_div_dep" and >> "1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_dep_div_indep") >> >>> >> >>> > Lie_group >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > +oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com does this classification look >> good? >> >>> >> >>> > Any suggestions would be really helpful. >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > Regards, >> >>> >> >>> > Mohit >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 1:53 PM mohit balwani < >> mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> Hi, oscar >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> I started looking at the (Single) ODE solver closely and as >> suggested by you, they are to be refactored in the form of classes. After >> performing all this work it will be easier to maintain the code and >> whenever a new solver is to be added it will be very easy to add it. In my >> GSoC proposal what exactly I should elaborate on because refactoring >> different solvers will be based on either SinglePatternODESolver >> >>> >> >>> >> or SingleODESolver only and both of the base classes are >> already implemented so we just have to inherit them. one thing I noted that >> there are helper functions in ode.py so I guess they should be moved to >> other file deutils.py may be. >> >>> >> >>> >> so in my proposal should I show the code for one of the >> non-refactored solvers? >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >> >>> >> >>> >> Mohit >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 2:22 AM Oscar Benjamin < >> oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Hi Mohit, >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> That's plenty enough for a GSOC project. You should try to >> go into >> >>> >> >>> >>> more detail in your proposal about exactly what you think >> should >> >>> >> >>> >>> happen though. Perhaps review all of the (single) ODE >> solvers that are >> >>> >> >>> >>> there now and how they can be refactored and simplified or >> improved in >> >>> >> >>> >>> the process. >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Refactoring the tests so that they can be reused will make >> it possible >> >>> >> >>> >>> to run all solvers on all of the tested ODEs which will >> expose many >> >>> >> >>> >>> bugs in the individual solvers. You don't need to worry >> about having >> >>> >> >>> >>> enough to do if you start thinking about fixing those >> bugs! If I was >> >>> >> >>> >>> doing this work myself I would begin with refactoring the >> tests so >> >>> >> >>> >>> that I can use them to compare before/after performance >> while >> >>> >> >>> >>> refactoring the solving code. >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> I think this would be too much for one GSOC project but >> the ultimate >> >>> >> >>> >>> goal I would like is to see the ODE code organised more >> like >> >>> >> >>> >>> integral_steps with rules leading to other rules and so on >> so that we >> >>> >> >>> >>> can have step-by-step solutions and better debugging >> output. Many of >> >>> >> >>> >>> the solvers are actually using substitutions so we should >> make it >> >>> >> >>> >>> possible for a solver to simply match the ODE and say "use >> this >> >>> >> >>> >>> substitution". We can't even begin to implement a >> rule-based system >> >>> >> >>> >>> until dsolve is refactored though. >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Oscar >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 19:34, mohit balwani < >> mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >>> > I am planning to take Refactoring ODE module as a GSoC >> project. >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >>> > For every solver we need to make it as a separate class >> so that classify_ode() can easily match the ode and return the solution >> right away. After that the test_ode.py also needs to be refactored as there >> are lot of redundant test and we can use data structures for maintaining >> and testing each and every part of test_ode.py.This will provide uniformity >> as there are some blocks which are not tested. >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >>> > So will this be enough for GSoC'20? >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >>> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 12:14 AM Oscar Benjamin < >> oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Those might be able to speed things up but not until >> the ODE module is >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> refactored. The reason the module needs to be >> refactored is that right >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> now it runs the whole of classify_ode including the >> matching code for >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> every single solver. >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> If it just returned the first match straight away and >> computed the >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> result it would be much faster. Then adding new fast >> methods that are >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> tried first can speed things up. As it stands though >> each method that >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> you add will probably just slow it down more. There >> needs to be a >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> refactor first so that classify_ode still works as >> expected even if >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> dsolve does something different. >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 16:04, mohit balwani >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> <mohitbalwani.ic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 10:00:33 PM UTC+5:30, >> mohit balwani wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> I have ideas of implementing functionalities in ODE >> mentioned in wiki page. with whom should I discuss it? >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > I have attached a pdf file in which there are >> shortcut tricks to solve linear ode, i don't know whether these methods are >> already implemented indirectly or will enhance the speed.But In my opinion >> if they are implemented then lot of work could be saved. For example if we >> look at method of undetermined coefficients, to find a particular integral >> of ode it solves for coefficient by comparing them and call solve which has >> matrix as argument. Now with the help of these tricks we do not need to >> call solve as it will directly find out the coefficients of particular >> integral. This pdf is handwritten notes and i have tried to write them as >> neat and understandable as possible and with each case i have also written >> 1 example so that it becomes easy to go through. >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > -- >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > 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 sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/2df1d019-75a6-48eb-a6ce-676337cda1a5%40googlegroups.com >> . >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> -- >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 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 sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxR-9tiiEN8Fak_0czd19gtBTiL_Lna09CLWcck72e5j-A%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> >>> >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >>> > -- >> >>> >> >>> >>> > 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 sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> >>> >> >>> >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2BuBTuy4jfMssJJqd59oZO-zf3uA29sMFPxkmjnbwmMexA%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> -- >> >>> >> >>> >>> 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 sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> >>> >> >>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxSf5xAg2V0M1vF2xo%2B1_0C_s4P1pf8%3DPJwVKUYfNNRxyA%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> >>> >> >> >>> >> -- >> >>> >> 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 sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxS_jx5EeJ2jSefgTGEXDY_D86C4i85178H26nCYEcrkPA%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> >>> > >> >>> > -- >> >>> > 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 sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2Buv0SrJtnusseGyGDwUqOBM-vGmTv5Z%2B4CwONdomBt%3D_Q%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> 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 sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxQvJeYsxKjg8au9JtG%2BP9n%2BNzx0S9xBMuynQeUqRUJS8w%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> > >> > -- >> > 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 sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/6befc892-802b-4190-9779-c27f3e27adde%40googlegroups.com >> . >> >> -- >> 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 sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxQNG0rnRMdvrf%2BGB-9k%3D_odncVq%3DL%3D_QD-sdyXL3t95qQ%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> > -- 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 sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2BvEdS%2Bbye3qCz3NSYAFvNGNMuDmNykP%2Bq4R0TskfLO6KQ%40mail.gmail.com.
