Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

> > How are these integrals above computed by Sage? Via Maxima, or in some > > other way? > > When I implemented this, they were all computed in Maxima by default, > unless otherwise requested. Thus symbolic integration may be > orthogonal to the pynac vs symengine discussion. > That is st

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:23:22 AM UTC-7 wst...@gmail.com wrote: > > Do you know how it compares to Sage's > fast_float and fast_callable "compilers" in terms of speed? > As a side note, https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/32234 removes the fast_float implementation (the predecessor of fas

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 6:56 PM Isuru Fernando wrote: > > Hi, > > A SymEngine maintainer here. > > > Pynac has a lot of I think nontrivial efficient hooks back into Sage > for working with various data types, and doing things like equality > testing, fast evaluation of expression (fast_float, etc.

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

Isuru -- thanks; those benchmarks are fantastic! I'm really glad this code exists (that you wrote). Also, Richard Fateman wrote this about symbolic integration (but isn't subscribed to sage-devel so I'm forwarding this from him): " If dgamma (x,a,b) is the value at x of the density function of

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

Here's the correct benchmark script, https://gist.github.com/isuruf/857e2236d2443ebd9085273b3e6ada3b Isuru On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 2:14 PM Isuru Fernando wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 1:23 PM William Stein wrote: > >> Hello Isuru -- thanks for popping in to comment! >> >> On Fri, Au

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

Hi, On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 1:23 PM William Stein wrote: > Hello Isuru -- thanks for popping in to comment! > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:56 AM Isuru Fernando wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > A SymEngine maintainer here. > > > > > Pynac has a lot of I think nontrivial efficient hooks back into Sage

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

Hello Isuru -- thanks for popping in to comment! On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:56 AM Isuru Fernando wrote: > > Hi, > > A SymEngine maintainer here. > > > Pynac has a lot of I think nontrivial efficient hooks back into Sage > for working with various data types, and doing things like equality > testi

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

On Fri, 27 Aug 2021, 20:45 William Stein, wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 2:21 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > How are these integrals above computed by Sage? Via Maxima, or in some > > other way? > > When I implemented this, they were all computed in Maxima by default, > unless otherwise requeste

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

Hi, A SymEngine maintainer here. > Pynac has a lot of I think nontrivial efficient hooks back into Sage for working with various data types, and doing things like equality testing, fast evaluation of expression (fast_float, etc.), With SymEngine, we do have fast evaluation of expressions with se

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 2:21 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > How are these integrals above computed by Sage? Via Maxima, or in some > other way? When I implemented this, they were all computed in Maxima by default, unless otherwise requested. Thus symbolic integration may be orthogonal to the pynac v

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 9:42 AM Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: > > Le jeudi 26 août 2021 à 13:25:50 UTC+2, kcrisman a écrit : >>> >>> >>> E.g. it looks like integration is not there. >> >> >> If I recall correctly, we use ginac/pynac only for symbolics proper (i.e. >> not calculus), as well as for d

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

Le jeudi 26 août 2021 à 13:25:50 UTC+2, kcrisman a écrit : >> E.g. it looks like integration is not there. >> > > If I recall correctly, we use ginac/pynac only for symbolics proper (i.e. > not calculus), as well as for differentiation. I don't know if symengine > is something to switch

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

> E.g. it looks like integration is not there. > If I recall correctly, we use ginac/pynac only for symbolics proper (i.e. not calculus), as well as for differentiation. I don't know if symengine is something to switch to (and Matthias is surely right about developer time, given the amaz

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 6:17 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 10:08:08 AM UTC-7 wst...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 9:58 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> > symengine appears to be such a candidate: >> > https://symengine.org/ >> >> (1 minute thought) Tha

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 10:08:08 AM UTC-7 wst...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 9:58 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > symengine appears to be such a candidate: > > https://symengine.org/ > > (1 minute thought) That website says that sympy uses symengine as a > backend for spe

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:37:20 AM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > perhaps we should make a quick assessment if moving to another symbolic > engine is something that's on the horizon? > I think a combination of Sympy and symengine would be the only candidate; but I think it is completely unr

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 9:58 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > On Wed, 25 Aug 2021, 19:37 Nils Bruin, wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 03:19:15 UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> The main problem of pynac is not that the present setup makes it hard to >>> work on symbolic issues, b

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021, 19:37 Nils Bruin, wrote: > On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 03:19:15 UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > >> The main problem of pynac is not that the present setup makes it hard to >> work on symbolic issues, but that Sage depends on it at all. >> > Aren't these separate issues? I

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 03:19:15 UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > The main problem of pynac is not that the present setup makes it hard to > work on symbolic issues, but that Sage depends on it at all. > Aren't these separate issues? It may be the case that we should switch symbolic engin

Re: [sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

I don't think this ticket is a very good idea long term, mainly due to pynac being essentially abandonware: no active contributor to Sage understands some details of pynac, there is a seemingly endless stream of bugs coming from it, etc. I am not saying this ticket should not go forward, but havin

[sage-devel] Refactoring/modularization work on the Symbolic Ring

https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/32386 proposes to merge the pynac sources as src/sage/symbolic/ginac into the Sage source tree. This will solve packaging issues and also make it easier for developers to work on symbolics issues. As this is a large chang