On Apr 20, 1:12 pm, Maurizio <maurizio.gran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Burcin, thanks for replying!
<SNIP>
> I don't know what about those algorithms, but it seems to me that
> SymPy already implements some good heuristics, which can solve
> integrals that Mathematica can't.
Well, there are many, many integrals that MMA can do that Sympy
cannot. So it doesn't matter that in this specific case SymPy solves
it.
> So can we take this as a starting
> point? I see that it is certainly possible to implement everything
> from the beginning, but a bootstrapped start seems better to me in the
> short term, because this could provide the user the functionalities
> needed. This could be useful to speed up the switch to the new
> symbolic system (I think you wouldn't do that without a good
> integration engine), and once there, you got a great exposure to bug
> fixing by users.
Well, talking about it won't make it happen :). People working on
Symbolics in Sage are well aware of Sympy and its capabilities, but it
is BSD (i.e. some people won't work on it) and abstract mathematical
capabilities aren't as well developed as in Sage and often quite a bit
slower. Pynac is building Symbolics from the ground up and it has
taken a while to get to where we are and another couple months more or
less won't make a difference at this point.
> Thanks
>
> Maurizio
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
