Hi Aaron,
Thank you for your feedback. I have also shifted my focus toward *FPS (Formal Power Series), rings, and domains*, as I believe these areas align more closely with core SymPy improvements. The open issue *gh-26957 <http://Hi%20Aaron,%20%20Thank%20you%20for%20your%20feedback.%20%20I%20have%20also%20shifted%20my%20focus%20toward%20FPS%20(Formal%20Power%20Series),%20rings,%20and%20domains,%20as%20I%20believe%20these%20areas%20align%20more%20closely%20with%20core%20SymPy%20improvements.%20The%20open%20issue%20gh-26957%20provides%20valuable%20information%20and%20guidance%20on%20this%20topic.%20Additionally,%20I%20have%20opened%20a%20discussion%20to%20gather%20feedback%20on%20this%20direction%20and%20hope%20mentors%20can%20provide%20further%20insights%20to%20refine%20the%20scope%20and%20approach.%20%20That%20said,%20I%20still%20plan%20to%20work%20on%20a%20PDE%20solver%20in%20the%20future,%20as%20I%20see%20its%20importance.%20However,%20for%20now,%20my%20focus%20is%20on%20foundational%20improvements%20that%20have%20a%20broader%20impact.%20%20Best%20regards,%20Jatin>* provides valuable information and guidance on this topic. Additionally, I have opened a discussion to gather feedback on this direction and hope mentors can provide further insights to refine the scope and approach. Best regards, *Jatin* On Thursday, 27 February 2025 at 14:51:00 UTC+5:30 [email protected] wrote: > Hello, > > Thank you for your insights on SymPy's priorities. Following your > discussion about PDE solver, I'd like to inquire about SymPy's current > direction regarding *Computational Group Theory.* > > I'm considering a project proposal focused on *implementing Quotient > Groups, Automorphism Groups, and algorithms for Infinite Groups*. Could > you please guide *if this aligns* with SymPy's *current priorities* and > whether *mentors* would be *available *for such a project? > > I've taken relevant Abstract Algebra ( Group,Ring, Field, Galois Theory) > courses at university, and have started with the reference mentioned on the > ideas page : *Handbook of Computational Group Theory* > Before proceeding further, I wanted to confirm if this area would be > considered of any value and relevance for SymPy's development at this time. > > Best regards, > Ashutosh Rajora > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 2:11 PM Aaron Meurer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I would also argue that symbolic PDE solvers are relevant and in-scope >> for SymPy. However, I also do agree with Oscar that as far as >> priorities go, many other things such as polynomials and matrices are >> much more important, as they affect virtually all parts of SymPy, >> whereas a PDE solver is not going to be used by any other part of >> SymPy. >> >> Aaron Meurer >> >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 7:44 AM Nicolas Guarin <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > I am in a different position than Oscar. Differential equations (and >> PDEs) have a place in the symbolic world. And the solution of them is one >> part. SymPy is far from doing what is possible with Maple regarding PDE >> solutions, for example. We are also lacking approximation done >> symbolically, as well. Asymptotic approximations, for example. >> > >> > I have used this kind of thing for benchmarking my numerical solutions >> using finite element methods, and consider that they are helpful. >> > >> > I have never been a mentor in GSOC in the past, but maybe I could try >> to if someone gives me a hand. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Nicolás >> > >> > >> > On Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 10:07:44 AM UTC-5 >> [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Oscar, >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you for your detailed response. I understand your perspective on >> prioritizing core functionalities. It makes sense that improving algebra, >> polynomials, matrices, and core solvers would provide a stronger foundation >> for symbolic computations. >> >> >> >> I appreciate your insights and keep these priorities in mind while >> considering future contributions to SymPy. While waiting for more reviews, >> I’ve begun looking into other core functionalities within SymPy that could >> be enhanced to improve the library further and make it a better fit for the >> project. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Jatin >> >> >> >> On Thursday, 6 February 2025 at 03:12:17 UTC+5:30 Oscar wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 at 13:41, Jatin Bhardwaj <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > Hello SymPy developers, >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > I am interested in improving SymPy's PDE-solving functionality, >> particularly for quasilinear first-order PDEs, general first-order >> nonlinear PDEs, and second-order PDEs. Currently, SymPy has strong support >> for linear PDEs, but handling nonlinear cases—especially quasilinear and >> fully nonlinear PDEs—remains limited. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > My primary question is: Does expanding PDE support in these areas >> align with SymPy’s current development roadmap and priorities? >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > If this aligns with SymPy’s goals, I would be enthusiastic about >> contributing to this effort. I have a strong foundation in calculus and >> differential equations, which I believe will be valuable in tackling this >> challenge. I’m prepared to delve into the computational implementation of >> these features and develop a concrete plan of action. >> >>> > >> >>> > To facilitate this process, I would greatly appreciate any guidance >> on: >> >>> > 1. Recommended resources for proposed features. >> >>> > 2. Any potential challenges or considerations unique to >> implementing nonlinear PDE solvers. >> >>> >> >>> Hi Jatin, >> >>> >> >>> SymPy does not have a broadly agreed development roadmap and list of >> >>> priorities. Rather different people have different things that they >> >>> are working on and would prioritise. I will answer in terms of my own >> >>> sense of a roadmap and priorities. >> >>> >> >>> SymPy has various solver functions e.g. solve for algebraic equations, >> >>> dsolve for ODEs and pdsolve for PDEs and many more. The usefulness of >> >>> these functions is often questionable. Even in the case of solve it >> >>> would often be better to use something else such as to compute >> >>> numerical solutions rather than analytic solutions. For dsolve, only >> >>> quite simple ODEs can be solved. The implementation can be improved to >> >>> handle more DEs but there would still be a tiny subset of problems >> >>> where analytic solutions can be computed and a vast array of practical >> >>> problems that realistically can only be handled numerically. When you >> >>> go to pdsolve and PDEs the set of cases that can be solved >> >>> analytically is so small that a function like pdsolve is almost >> >>> useless. It would be much more useful to users if SymPy just provided >> >>> something like an ndsolve function that could solve differential >> >>> equations numerically using SciPy's solvers rather than making them go >> >>> through lambdify. >> >>> >> >>> That does not mean that we can't do useful things with symbolics when >> >>> solving these different types of equations. Often though the useful >> >>> thing is to do some symbolic manipulation that then helps with a >> >>> subsequent approximate or numeric calculation e.g. we could compute a >> >>> series solution or transform the equations somehow. Some symbolic >> >>> manipulation is needed even just to set up a numeric solution to a PDE >> >>> so you could imagine something useful where SymPy can do that and then >> >>> set things up so that the problem could be solved numerically with >> >>> e.g. FEniCS. >> >>> >> >>> All of these are also things that could be built on top of SymPy >> >>> though so e.g. someone could make a library that depends on SymPy and >> >>> that uses it to do useful things with PDEs and FEniCS etc. The >> >>> capabilities that such a library would provide would be the same if it >> >>> was part of SymPy or just a separate library. Its capabilities would >> >>> be limited though by the capabilities of the core parts of SymPy. When >> >>> I look at GSOC proposals I am much more interested in proposals that >> >>> improve existing core functionality that would provide a good >> >>> foundation for other things to be built on top. >> >>> >> >>> If SymPy did not have pdsolve and someone proposed it in a GSOC >> >>> project now then I would say that we should reject the proposal. The >> >>> only way that I would be happy to add pdsolve is if the code was >> >>> already written, comprehensive, well tested, with a well defined scope >> >>> and had already been proven to be useful. As it is we have a function >> >>> that is not that useful and would still not be that useful even if >> >>> someone improved it a bit. I'm not interested in having a GSOC project >> >>> that tries to improve pdsolve rather than some other project that >> >>> improves some core part of SymPy. >> >>> >> >>> It is possible that someone else would be interested in supervising a >> >>> project around pdsolve but personally I would not and I would not >> >>> consider it to be any kind of priority for SymPy's roadmap. The >> >>> priorities from my perspective are more things like core algebra, >> >>> polynomials and matrices, functions like solve, limits, series, code >> >>> generation, performance, etc. If these parts of SymPy are good then it >> >>> provides a good foundation for someone to make a symbolic PDE library >> >>> but if we don't have the resources to handle the core things then we >> >>> should not spend those resources on things that could just be in other >> >>> libraries that depend on SymPy. >> >>> >> >>> Oscar >> > >> > -- >> > 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 visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/a7da6fc0-874b-449d-bee3-8aed9f526ad9n%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 visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAKgW%3D6JVBX_Ge7s-r3r-f5DFE0GSFk%2B2Z%3DjdFnBtAy%2B29HBFqg%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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/9213e40c-cfc2-4cfb-924e-870d5bf0f281n%40googlegroups.com.
