On 31 March 2016 at 22:33, Poul Riis wrote:
> Den onsdag den 30. marts 2016 kl. 13.17.33 UTC+2 skrev Poul Riis:
>> Is it possible to transfer results from sympy to 'normal' python.
>>
>> In the case below I think my intention is clear enough but it does not work
>> as intended. How can it be done
Den onsdag den 30. marts 2016 kl. 13.17.33 UTC+2 skrev Poul Riis:
> Is it possible to transfer results from sympy to 'normal' python.
>
> In the case below I think my intention is clear enough but it does not work
> as intended. How can it be done?
>
> Poul Riis
>
>
>
>
> from sympy import *
On 31 March 2016 at 11:57, Poul Riis wrote:
>
> ... However, the sympy way seems to be about 70 times slower than using the
> derivative calculated 'by hand' (try the example below).
> Can it be done in a more efficient way?
>
> Poul Riis
>
>
>
> from sympy import *
> from time import *
> x=Symbo
Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
>> Hm, the two functions fmsympy() and fm() do not return the same value:
>>
>> $ python -i sympy_diff.py
>> 1 evaluations with sympy : dt1 = 0.7178411483764648
>> 1 evaluations without sympy:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
> Hm, the two functions fmsympy() and fm() do not return the same value:
>
> $ python -i sympy_diff.py
> 1 evaluations with sympy : dt1 = 0.7178411483764648
> 1 evaluations without sympy: dt2 = 0.10177111625671387
>>>
Poul Riis wrote:
> Den onsdag den 30. marts 2016 kl. 17.59.49 UTC+2 skrev Steven D'Aprano:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:23 am, Poul Riis wrote:
>>
>> > What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some
>> > welldefined function and next define the foundation derivative as a
>> > normal
Den onsdag den 30. marts 2016 kl. 17.59.49 UTC+2 skrev Steven D'Aprano:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:23 am, Poul Riis wrote:
>
> > What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some
> > welldefined function and next define the foundation derivative as a normal
> > function so that I can c
Den torsdag den 31. marts 2016 kl. 06.49.34 UTC+2 skrev Gregory Ewing:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:23 am, Poul Riis wrote:
> >
> >>What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some
> >>welldefined function and next define the foundation derivative as a normal
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:23 am, Poul Riis wrote:
What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some
welldefined function and next define the foundation derivative as a normal
function
py> ftext.evalf(subs={x:3})
-0.0600
Given all that, it looks
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:23 am, Poul Riis wrote:
> What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some
> welldefined function and next define the foundation derivative as a normal
> function so that I can calculate numerical values or even make a graph.
I'm glad you explained what you
On 2016-03-30 16:23, Poul Riis wrote:
What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some welldefined
function and next define the foundation derivative as a normal function so that
I can calculate numerical values or even make a graph.
http://docs.sympy.org/dev/modules/utilities/
What I intend to do is to let sympy find the derivative of some welldefined
function and next define the foundation derivative as a normal function so that
I can calculate numerical values or even make a graph.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:17 pm, Poul Riis wrote:
> Is it possible to transfer results from sympy to 'normal' python.
>
> In the case below I think my intention is clear enough but it does not
> work as intended. How can it be done?
How can what be done? Unfortunately, we're not able to read your m
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 7:17:33 AM UTC-4, Poul Riis wrote:
> Is it possible to transfer results from sympy to 'normal' python.
Poul, welcome to the group.
> In the case below I think my intention is clear enough but it does not work
> as intended. How can it be done?
>
> from sympy impo
Poul Riis writes:
> Is it possible to transfer results from sympy to 'normal' python.
Is Sympy not “normal Python”? What transfer are you intending?
> In the case below I think my intention is clear enough but it does not
> work as intended. How can it be done?
First: no, your intention is not
Brian Blais wrote:
Hello,
I wrote a very simple script using sympy, and things were working fine,
except for one problem. So I have:
You will probably want to ask on the sympy mailing list:
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy
from sympy import *
x, y = symbols('x','y',real=True)
alpha
On Mar 5, 3:34 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 9:29 am, Nanjundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 3:13 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 4, 12:32 pm, Nanjundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Does seeding ( random.seed ) random with time fi
On Mar 5, 9:29 am, Nanjundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:13 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 12:32 pm, Nanjundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Does seeding ( random.seed ) random with time fix this? It should.
>
> > I suppose that depends on how long it take
On Mar 4, 3:13 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 12:32 pm, Nanjundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Does seeding ( random.seed ) random with time fix this? It should.
>
> I suppose that depends on how long it takes factorint() to
> process a number. If the seed is reset befor
On Mar 4, 4:40 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:00 pm, Istvan Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 3:13 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > But what if _I_ wanted to make a repeatable sequence for test
> > > purposes? Wouldn't factorint() destroy my
On Mar 4, 3:00 pm, Istvan Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:13 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But what if _I_ wanted to make a repeatable sequence for test
> > purposes? Wouldn't factorint() destroy my attempt by reseeding
> > on every call?
>
> Would it?
I don't kno
apatheticagnostic:
> I swear, this is one of the most polite-oriented groups I've ever
> seen.
> Not that that's a bad thing or anything, it's nice to be nice.
Yep, and with lot more work it may even become a bit fit for women/
females too.
Bye,
bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listi
On Mar 4, 3:13 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But what if _I_ wanted to make a repeatable sequence for test
> purposes? Wouldn't factorint() destroy my attempt by reseeding
> on every call?
Would it?
It may just be that you are now itching to see a problem even where
there isn't one
On Mar 4, 12:32 pm, Nanjundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Notice anything funny about the "random" choices?
>
> > import sympy
> > import time
> > import random
>
> > f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,1)]
>
> > for i in
On Mar 4, 10:50 am, Lie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 1:12 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Mensanator wrote:
> > > > While we're on the subject of English, the word "worthless"
> > > > means "ha
On Mar 4, 2:44 am, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mensanator wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Mensanator wrote:
> >>> I'm not hard to please at all.
> >> No, of course not, since logically you must think all software is useless.
>
> > So
On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Notice anything funny about the "random" choices?
>
> import sympy
> import time
> import random
>
> f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,1)]
>
> for i in xrange(10):
> f1 = random.choice(f)
> print f1,
> f2 = random.choice(f)
>
On Mar 4, 10:50 am, Lie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 1:12 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Mensanator wrote:
> > > > While we're on the subject of English, the word "worthless"
> > > > means "ha
On Mar 4, 1:12 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Mensanator wrote:
> > > While we're on the subject of English, the word "worthless"
> > > means "has no value". So, a program that doesn't work would
> > > generally be "
Mensanator wrote:
> On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mensanator wrote:
>>> I'm not hard to please at all.
>> No, of course not, since logically you must think all software is useless.
>
> Somehow, I expected better logic from people who call themselves
> programm
On Mar 3, 11:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mensanator wrote:
> > While we're on the subject of English, the word "worthless"
> > means "has no value". So, a program that doesn't work would
> > generally be "worthless". One that not only doesn't work but
> > creates side effec
On Mar 3, 8:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > All software has bugs.
> > Good software has bugs.
>
> Therefore, good software is software.
>
> > This makes sympy worse than worthless, as it f***s up other modules.
>
> What is it still good for?
Lots. The problem is when the total is less than th
Mensanator wrote:
> While we're on the subject of English, the word "worthless"
> means "has no value". So, a program that doesn't work would
> generally be "worthless". One that not only doesn't work but
> creates side effects that cause other programs to not work
> (which don't have bugs) would
> All software has bugs.
> Good software has bugs.
Therefore, good software is software.
> This makes sympy worse than worthless, as it f***s up other modules.
What is it still good for?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mar 3, 6:49 pm, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mensanator wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 4:53 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 3. You must be terribly naive if you expect a freeware program with a
> >> version number of 0.5.12 not to have bugs
>
> > No, but I guess I'm naive thinki
On Mar 3, 6:21 pm, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mensanator wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 4:08 pm, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Mensanator wrote:
> >>> On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of t
Mensanator wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:53 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 3. You must be terribly naive if you expect a freeware program with a
>> version number of 0.5.12 not to have bugs
>
> No, but I guess I'm naive thinking that when someone posts a link to
> such a program that he's re
On Mar 3, 7:24 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:53 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 4:47 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PRO
On Mar 3, 4:53 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:47 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Notice anything funny about the "rand
Mensanator wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:08 pm, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mensanator wrote:
>>> On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the
random number generator. It would be a simple fix. Instead
On Mar 3, 4:08 pm, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mensanator wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the
> >> random number generator. It would be a simple fix. Instead of
> >> bing abo
I swear, this is one of the most polite-oriented groups I've ever
seen.
Not that that's a bad thing or anything, it's nice to be nice.
(This has been Captain Universal Truth, over and out)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mar 3, 4:47 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Notice anything funny about the "random" choices?
>
> > > import sympy
> > > import time
> > > import random
Mensanator wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the
>> random number generator. It would be a simple fix. Instead of
>> bing about it, file a bug report.
>
> I did.
>
>> Or better yet, submit
On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Notice anything funny about the "random" choices?
>
> > import sympy
> > import time
> > import random
>
> > f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,1)]
>
> > for i in
On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Notice anything funny about the "random" choices?
>
> import sympy
> import time
> import random
>
> f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,1)]
>
> for i in xrange(10):
> f1 = random.choice(f)
> print f1,
> f2 = random.choice(f)
>
46 matches
Mail list logo
