On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 12:18:18 AM UTC-8, Buck Evan wrote: > > > In terms of numerics though, it would be beneficial to get sage to > simplify to the regularized function before computation. I can't see how > this can happen under the above scheme. >
You could consider the incomplete gamma function as defined in terms of the regularized one. It may depend on the application what's desirable. You could provide two different normalization routines. > As William noted, I had hoped pynac would be an option. I don't know > whether pynac is allowed to drift in feature set from ginac though. > pynac is a fork of ginac, so originally they had comparable feature sets and application domains. If I'm not mistaken, the "n" in ginac indicates it does *not* concern itself with rewriting questions such as the one you're asking about (you may well find that to do the rewrites properly, you need groebner bases or other algebraic elimination tools). It seems to me this functionality would be a layer *on top* of pynac/ginac. Concerning interface design: please do not support "log=, regularized= " arguments. They change which function you are talking about. They deserve separate objects (that will also be easier for rewrite rules). Name them gamma_log, gamma_regularized if you want to emphasize their relation to gamma. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
