I had a quick look and it seems reasonable. On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 14:48, Milan Jolly <[email protected]> wrote: > > If there are no issues with the proposal or the timeline mentioned(which I > will update soon due to the GSoC program timeline changes), then I am > planning on submitting the proposal in 2 days. Feedback would be appreciated > if possible. > > On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 10:00:22 PM UTC+5:30, Milan Jolly wrote: >> >> Thank you for your feedback. I have added another paragraph in the >> Motivation section where the I have added how these new solvers are >> advantageous to the end users. >> >> On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:25:31 AM UTC+5:30, Oscar wrote: >>> >>> I took a quick look. It's long so I didn't read it fully but it looks >>> good. There is a lot of detail about what you would do but perhaps the >>> motivation section can be strengthened. What does all of this mean for >>> end users etc? If you completed the work described then sympy's >>> capabilities for systems of ODEs would be expanded enormously. >>> >>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 at 19:26, Milan Jolly <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > Here is the link to my proposal: >>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/12QN19LSjwEvYoSukyq-BWd76ZrI24FQuU0CGIOIx6Ww/edit?usp=sharing >>> > >>> > On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 3:22:00 AM UTC+5:30, Oscar wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Stating clearly what the different parts do in high-level terms should >>> >> be sufficient. >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 16:57, Milan Jolly <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks for clearing my doubt. >>> >> > >>> >> > Now, I have started preparing my GSOC proposal and it will be ready >>> >> > soon. But, I wanted to know that will it be ok that I don't give >>> >> > details about the implementations of the helper functions and solvers >>> >> > and simply state what they do, which parameters they take, what they >>> >> > return and how they fit in the solving process while I give more >>> >> > details about how they fit together more generally. I would like to >>> >> > elucidate more on how the main function ode_sol handles the system of >>> >> > equations using the helper functions and various solvers as it is the >>> >> > only thing that is not clearly mentioned in the roadmap. >>> >> > >>> >> > On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 7:33:17 PM UTC+5:30, Oscar wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> It's not always the case that symmetric matrices commute so actually >>> >> >> checking if it is symmetric is not sufficient e.g.: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> In [83]: M = Matrix([[2*x**2, x], [x, x**2]]) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> In [84]: M.is_symmetric() >>> >> >> Out[84]: True >>> >> >> >>> >> >> In [85]: M*M.diff(x) == M.diff(x)*M >>> >> >> Out[85]: False >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Maybe there is something that can be said more generally about >>> >> >> `exp(M(t)).diff(t)` when `M` is symmetric but does not necessarily >>> >> >> commute with `M.diff(t)`... >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 at 18:34, Milan Jolly <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > In ODE systems roadmap, you have mentioned that for system of ODEs >>> >> >> > where the coefficient matrix is non-constant, if the coefficient >>> >> >> > matrix A(t) is symmetric, then A(t) and its anti derivative B(t) >>> >> >> > commute and thus we get the solution based on this fact. But it is >>> >> >> > also mentioned that if A and B commuting is more general than when >>> >> >> > A is symmetric, that is, it is possible that A is not symmetric but >>> >> >> > A and B commute. So, for that solver, should we first compute its >>> >> >> > anti derivative and test it that commutes with A or just check if A >>> >> >> > is symmetric and use the solution? >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 3:18:31 AM UTC+5:30, Oscar wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> That sounds reasonable. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Note that we can't start raising NotImplementedError yet. You will >>> >> >> >> need to think about how to introduce the new code gradually while >>> >> >> >> still ensuring that dsolve falls back on the old code for cases not >>> >> >> >> yet handled by the new code. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 17:51, Milan Jolly <[email protected]> >>> >> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > So, I have made a rough layout of the main function that will be >>> >> >> >> > used to solve ODEs with the methods like >>> >> >> >> > neq_nth_order_linear_constant_coeff_homogeneous/nonhomogeneous, >>> >> >> >> > neq_nth_linear_symmetric_coeff_homogeneous/nonhomogeneous, >>> >> >> >> > special case non-linear solvers, etc. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > Some notations used: >>> >> >> >> > eqs: Equations, funcs: dependent variables, t: independent >>> >> >> >> > variable, wcc: weakly connected component, scc: strongly >>> >> >> >> > connected component >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > Introduction to helper functions that will be used(these are >>> >> >> >> > temporary names, parameters and return elements and may be >>> >> >> >> > changed if required): >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > 1. match_ode:- >>> >> >> >> > Parameters: eqs, funcs, t >>> >> >> >> > Returns: dictionary which has important keys like: >>> >> >> >> > order(a dict that has func as a key and maximum order found as >>> >> >> >> > value), is_linear, is_constant, is_homogeneous, eqs, funcs. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > 2. component_division:- >>> >> >> >> > Paramters: eqs, funcs >>> >> >> >> > Returns: A 3D list where the eqs are first divided into >>> >> >> >> > its wccs and then into its sccs. >>> >> >> >> > This function is suggested to be implemented later. So, >>> >> >> >> > until all the other solvers are not ready(tested and working), >>> >> >> >> > this function will just take eqs and return [[eqs]]. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > 3. get_coeff_matrix:- >>> >> >> >> > Parameters: eqs, funcs >>> >> >> >> > Returns: coefficient matrix A(t) and f(t) >>> >> >> >> > This function takes in a first order linear ODE and >>> >> >> >> > returns matrix A(t) and f(t) from X' = A(t) * X + f(t). >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > 4. nth_order_to_first_order:- >>> >> >> >> > Parameters: eqs, order >>> >> >> >> > Returns: first order ODE with new introduced dependent >>> >> >> >> > variables. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > And all the first order linear solvers mentioned above. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > Now, besides the main function, there are two separate functions >>> >> >> >> > depending on whether the system of ODEs is linear or not, namely >>> >> >> >> > _linear_ode_sol and _non_linear_ode_sol. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > 1. _first_order_linear_ode_sol:- >>> >> >> >> > Parameters: match dict(obtained earlier and maybe >>> >> >> >> > modified in ode_sol) >>> >> >> >> > Returns: Dict with keys as func and value as its >>> >> >> >> > solution that solves the ODE. >>> >> >> >> > Working: First, extracts A(t) and f(t) using >>> >> >> >> > get_coeff_matrix, then using match dict, identify which solver >>> >> >> >> > is required and solve the ODE if it is possible to do so. For >>> >> >> >> > example: Case where A(t) is not symmetric isn't solved. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > 2. _non_linear_ode_sol has similar Parameters and Returns but >>> >> >> >> > the function operates differently that's why it is essential to >>> >> >> >> > use a different function. But I don't have a clear understanding >>> >> >> >> > of how to design _non_linear_ode_sol yet but here is what I >>> >> >> >> > have came up with: First match the condition where it is >>> >> >> >> > possible seperate out the independent variable to get a >>> >> >> >> > relationship >>> >> >> >> > between the dependent variables and then finally, just use >>> >> >> >> > the special solver to solve the ODE. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > Now, coming to the main function ode_sol(for now, I haven't >>> >> >> >> > considered initial values):- >>> >> >> >> > Parameters: eqs, funcs, t >>> >> >> >> > Returns: Solution in a dict form where func is the key and >>> >> >> >> > value is the solution for that corresponding func. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > Working: >>> >> >> >> > The steps of its working- >>> >> >> >> > 1. Preprocess the equations. >>> >> >> >> > 2. Get the match dict using match_ode function. >>> >> >> >> > 3. Convert nth order equations to first order equations >>> >> >> >> > using nth_order_to_first_order while storing the funcs >>> >> >> >> > seperately so that we can later filter out the dependent >>> >> >> >> > variables that were introduced in this step. >>> >> >> >> > 4. Get the 3D list of equations using component_division >>> >> >> >> > function. >>> >> >> >> > 5. Iterate through the wccs and solve and store solutions >>> >> >> >> > seperately but for sccs, first solve the first set of equations >>> >> >> >> > in a scc, then substitute the solutions found in the first set >>> >> >> >> > of the current scc to the second >>> >> >> >> > set of current scc. Keep doing this until the all the >>> >> >> >> > sets for a particular scc is solved. >>> >> >> >> > 6. For solving a component, choose either _linear_ode_sol >>> >> >> >> > or _non_linear_ode_sol depending upon the set of equations to be >>> >> >> >> > solved. >>> >> >> >> > 7. Return a dict by taking out values from the solution >>> >> >> >> > obtained using all the dependent variables in funcs as there may >>> >> >> >> > be more variables introduced when we made the system into first >>> >> >> >> > order. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > For now, this is what I have came up with. Obviously the order >>> >> >> >> > in which we will proceed is, build the basic layout of the main >>> >> >> >> > function and component_division will just increase the number of >>> >> >> >> > dimensions to 3 rudimentarily as we >>> >> >> >> > will have to first ensure that the general solvers work well >>> >> >> >> > since working on both of them simultaneously will make it tough >>> >> >> >> > to pinpoint the errors. Along with that, non-linear solvers can >>> >> >> >> > be implemented later, we can just raise a >>> >> >> >> > NotImplementedError for now till we have completed both the >>> >> >> >> > general linear solvers and the component_division and then add >>> >> >> >> > the special case solvers. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:02:29 AM UTC+5:30, Oscar wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> There are possibilities to go from nonlinear to linear e.g.: >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> In [6]: x, y = symbols('x, y', cls=Function) >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> In [7]: eqs = [x(t).diff(t)**2 - y(t)**2, y(t).diff(t)**2 - >>> >> >> >> >> x(t)**2] >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> In [8]: eqs >>> >> >> >> >> Out[8]: >>> >> >> >> >> ⎡ 2 2⎤ >>> >> >> >> >> ⎢ 2 ⎛d ⎞ 2 ⎛d ⎞ ⎥ >>> >> >> >> >> ⎢- y (t) + ⎜──(x(t))⎟ , - x (t) + ⎜──(y(t))⎟ ⎥ >>> >> >> >> >> ⎣ ⎝dt ⎠ ⎝dt ⎠ ⎦ >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> In [9]: solve(eqs, [x(t).diff(t), y(t).diff(t)], dict=True) >>> >> >> >> >> Out[9]: >>> >> >> >> >> ⎡⎧d d ⎫ ⎧d d >>> >> >> >> >> ⎫ >>> >> >> >> >> ⎧d d ⎫ ⎧d d >>> >> >> >> >> ⎫⎤ >>> >> >> >> >> ⎢⎨──(x(t)): -y(t), ──(y(t)): -x(t)⎬, ⎨──(x(t)): -y(t), ──(y(t)): >>> >> >> >> >> x(t)⎬, ⎨──(x(t)): y(t), ──(y(t)): -x(t)⎬, ⎨──(x(t)): y(t), >>> >> >> >> >> ──(y(t)): >>> >> >> >> >> x(t)⎬⎥ >>> >> >> >> >> ⎣⎩dt dt ⎭ ⎩dt dt >>> >> >> >> >> ⎭ >>> >> >> >> >> ⎩dt dt ⎭ ⎩dt dt >>> >> >> >> >> ⎭⎦ >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 15:48, Milan Jolly <[email protected]> >>> >> >> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> > Thanks for the suggestion, I have started with the design for >>> >> >> >> >> > these solvers. But I have one doubt, namely since now we are >>> >> >> >> >> > using linear_eq_to_matrix function to check if the system of >>> >> >> >> >> > ODEs is linear or not, would we require the canonical >>> >> >> >> >> > rearrangements part? Or rather are there other cases when we >>> >> >> >> >> > can reduce non-linear ODEs into linear ODEs. >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> > On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 2:53:57 AM UTC+5:30, Oscar wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> That seems reasonable to me. Since the plan is a total >>> >> >> >> >> >> rewrite I think >>> >> >> >> >> >> that it would be good to put some time in at the beginning >>> >> >> >> >> >> for >>> >> >> >> >> >> designing how all of these pieces would fit together. For >>> >> >> >> >> >> example even >>> >> >> >> >> >> if the connected components part comes at the end it would >>> >> >> >> >> >> be good to >>> >> >> >> >> >> think about how that code would fit in from the beginning >>> >> >> >> >> >> and to >>> >> >> >> >> >> clearly document it both in issues and in the code. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> Getting a good design is actually more important than >>> >> >> >> >> >> implementing all >>> >> >> >> >> >> of the pieces. If the groundwork is done then other >>> >> >> >> >> >> contributors in >>> >> >> >> >> >> future can easily implement the remaining features one by >>> >> >> >> >> >> one. Right >>> >> >> >> >> >> now it is not easy to improve the code for systems because >>> >> >> >> >> >> of the way >>> >> >> >> >> >> that it is structured. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 19:27, Milan Jolly >>> >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > Thanks for your reply. I have planned a rough layout for >>> >> >> >> >> >> > the phases. I took a lot of time this past month to >>> >> >> >> >> >> > understand all the mathematics that will be involved and >>> >> >> >> >> >> > have grasped some part of it. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > If I am lucky and get selected for GSOC'20 for this >>> >> >> >> >> >> > organisation, then the below is the rough plan. Please >>> >> >> >> >> >> > comment on suggestions if necessary. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > Community Bonding phase: >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 1. Using matrix exponential to solve first order linear >>> >> >> >> >> >> > constant coefficient homogeneous systems(n equations). >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 2. Adding new test cases and/or updating old ones. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 3. Removing and closing related issues if they are solved >>> >> >> >> >> >> > by the addition of this general solver. Identifying and >>> >> >> >> >> >> > removing the special cases solvers which are covered by >>> >> >> >> >> >> > this general solver. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > Phase I: >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 1. Adding technique to solve first order constant >>> >> >> >> >> >> > coefficient non-homogeneous systems(n equations). >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 2. Adding the functionality that reduces higher order >>> >> >> >> >> >> > linear ODEs to first order linear ODEs(if not done >>> >> >> >> >> >> > already, and if done, then incorporating it to solve >>> >> >> >> >> >> > higher order ODEs). >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 3. Adding a special case solver when non-constant linear >>> >> >> >> >> >> > first order ODE has symmetric coefficient matrix. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > Phase II: >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 1. Adding technique to solve non-constant non-homogeneous >>> >> >> >> >> >> > linear ODE based off the solver added by the end of Phase >>> >> >> >> >> >> > I. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 2. Evaluating and eliminating unnecessary solvers. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 3. Closing related issues solved by the general solvers >>> >> >> >> >> >> > and identifying and removing unwanted solvers. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 4. Adding basic rearrangements to simplify the system of >>> >> >> >> >> >> > ODEs. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > Phase III: >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 1. Dividing the ODEs by evaluating which sub-systems are >>> >> >> >> >> >> > weakly and strongly connected and handling both of these >>> >> >> >> >> >> > cases accordingly. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 2. Adding a special case solver where the independent >>> >> >> >> >> >> > variable can be eliminated and thus solving the system >>> >> >> >> >> >> > becomes easier. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > 3. Wrapping things up: adding test cases, eliminating >>> >> >> >> >> >> > unwanted solvers and updating documentation. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > This is the rough layout and my plan for summer if I get >>> >> >> >> >> >> > selected. If this plan seems ok then I would include this >>> >> >> >> >> >> > plan in my proposal. >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 9:37:31 PM UTC+5:30, Oscar >>> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's hard to say how much time each of these would take. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> The roadmap >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> aims to completely replace all of the existing code for >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> systems of >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ODEs. How much of that you think you would be able to do >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> is up to you >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> if making a proposal. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> None of the other things described in the roadmap is >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> implemented >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> anywhere as far as I know. Following the roadmap it >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> should be possible >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> to close all of these issues I think: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Asolvers.dsolve.system >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 22:30, Milan Jolly >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I have mostly read and understood matrix exponentials >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and Jordan forms along with the ODE systems roadmap. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > But I am unclear as to what has already been done when >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > it comes to implementing the general solvers. For >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > example: The matrix exponentials part has already been >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > implemented and now I have a PR that has revived the >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > matrix exponential code. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I want to make a proposal and contribute to make these >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > general solvers during this summer if my proposal gets >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > accepted. But I am unclear what should be the parts I >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > need to work during community bonding period, phase 1, >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > phase 2 and phase 3 as I am unaware how much time each >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > part of the general solvers would take. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > If someone can help me in this regard(helping me with >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > these 2 questions) then it would be great. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 5:09 AM Milan Jolly >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I will go through the roadmap. Also, I will work on >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> reviving and finishing the stalled PRs namely the >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> matrix exponential one for now as I am interested in >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> working towards this. Thanks. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 9:56 PM Oscar Benjamin >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> This section in the roadmap refers to existing >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> stalled PRs trying to >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> fix the n-equations solver for constant coefficient >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> homogeneous ODEs >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> which is the first step: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/ODE-Systems-roadmap#constant-coefficients---current-status >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> A first step would be to attempt to revive one or >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> both of those PRs >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> and finish them off. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 05:59, Milan Jolly >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > So, I am interested in rewriting parts of the >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > current ODE as discussed in the roadmap. Is there >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > any work started in that direction and if not then >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > can I create a PR for the same? >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 2:52 AM Oscar Benjamin >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> The current refactoring effort applies only to the >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> case of solving >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> *single* ODEs. The ODE systems code also needs to >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> be refactored but >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> (in my opinion) needs a complete rewrite. That is >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> what the roadmap is >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> about (it describes how to rewrite everything). >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> The code for systems >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> of ODEs should also get refactored in the process >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> but there is no need >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> to "refactor" it in its current form if it is in >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> fact being >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> *completely* rewritten: we can just make sure that >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> the new code is >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> written the way we want it to be. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> On Sun, 23 Feb 2020 at 19:52, Milan Jolly >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > Ok so I have gone through the links suggested >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > and I have realised that as far as ODE module is >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > concerned, refactoring is the most important >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > task. But, as far as that is concerned, I think >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > Mohit Balwani is working on this for a while and >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > I want to limit any collisions with my >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > co-contributors. So, I have couple of ideas to >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > work on: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > 1. Helping to extend the solvers, >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > i.e.implementing a fully working n-equations >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > solver for constant coefficient homogeneous >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > systems. This is from the ODE systems map. I am >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > interested in working on this but I understand >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > that it might be hard to work upon it while >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > refactoring takes place. Still, if its possible >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > to work on this and if no one else has started >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > to work in this direction yet then I am willing >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > to work for this. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > 2. Using connected components function >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > implemented by Oscar Benjamin in >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/16225 to >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > enhance ODE solvers and computing eigen values >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > faster as mentioned here >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/16207 . >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > 3. This idea is not mentioned in the ideas page >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > and is something of my own. If there is anything >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > possible, then I can also work on extending >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > functions like maximum, minimum, argmax, argmin, >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > etc in calculus module. I have been working on >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > the issue >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/18550 and I >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > think there is some scope to extend these >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > functionalities. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > On Sunday, February 23, 2020 at 1:32:20 AM >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > UTC+5:30, Milan Jolly wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Hello everyone, >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> My name is Milan Jolly and I am an >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> undergraduate student at Indian Institute of >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Technology, Patna. For the past 2 month, I have >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> been learning and exploring sympy through >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> either contributions, reading documentation or >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> trying examples out. This last month I have >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> learned a lot of new things thanks to the well >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> designed code-base, the structured way this >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> community works and most importantly the >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> maintainers who make it work. It has been a >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> pleasure to be a part of the community. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> I am interested in participating for GSoC this >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> year and I would like to work for this org >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> during the summers if I am lucky. I >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> particularly want to work on improving the >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> current ODE module as it is given in the idea >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> list. There is a lot of work that needs to be >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> taken care of like: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> 1. Implementing solvers for solving constant >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> coefficient non-homogeneous systems >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> 2. Solving mixed order ODEs >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> 3. Adding rearrangements to solve the system >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> These are not my ideas but I have taken >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> inspiration from the ideas page but I am up for >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> working on these. If someone can guide me >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> regarding this then it would be really helpful. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > -- >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/1033f581-abbb-4be5-a5b2-1988f4261535%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 >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> [email protected]. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxTeWturK6WmtHKxakLqbV1yhp5_KoTPs8vPtmbu8%3D2VxQ%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 >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > [email protected]. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAMrWc1BZKcwjFvVQwZZ80P6s-CP62Tn_VN30zBEdjmqhrN44DA%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 >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> [email protected]. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxRGFJC%2BGeowaNJcVFQsQsGq%2Bh0SW-jmYezsSzU5%3DvipcA%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 [email protected]. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAMrWc1CYmTAwU4mFX%3DkOdZnmkzosN14VUAQBdteUETXas58n1w%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 sy...@googlegr > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/40081db9-7195-4dd8-9925-102280f78ed2%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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxT5EGs0wtY-St4j0XpAd29Oz86ujsJMpyPwhm_NAY_4aQ%40mail.gmail.com.
