[DISCUSSION] GSOC idea about ODE
218 views
Skip to first unread message
mohit balwani
Jan 9, 2020, 11:30:33 AM1/9/20
to sympy
I have ideas of implementing functionalities in ODE mentioned in wiki page. with whom should I discuss it?
rituraj singh
Jan 9, 2020, 12:06:17 PM1/9/20
to sympy
I have already implemented things from the ideas page so I will update the idea page very soon.
But still, you can share your ideas here, and then we can discuss here, and then also, some members can give their opinions/thoughts.
mohit balwani
Jan 15, 2020, 1:41:58 PM1/15/20
to sympy
Is GSOC 2020 ideas page updated now?
Oscar Benjamin
Jan 15, 2020, 5:01:41 PM1/15/20
to sympy
I've added some stuff about ODEs:
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/GSoC-2020-Ideas#systems-of-ordinary-differential-equations
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/GSoC-2020-Ideas#refactor-the-ode-module-and-make-it-fast
I'll try to add more later
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 18:42, mohit balwani
<mohitbalw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is GSOC 2020 ideas page updated now?
>
> --
> 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 sympy+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/7eb55697-b634-4b22-98c3-0d64053f83f6%40googlegroups.com.
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/GSoC-2020-Ideas#systems-of-ordinary-differential-equations
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/GSoC-2020-Ideas#refactor-the-ode-module-and-make-it-fast
I'll try to add more later
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 18:42, mohit balwani
<mohitbalw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is GSOC 2020 ideas page updated now?
>
> 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 sympy+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/7eb55697-b634-4b22-98c3-0d64053f83f6%40googlegroups.com.
Message has been deleted
mohit balwani
Jan 23, 2020, 11:04:09 AM1/23/20
to sympy
On Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 10:00:33 PM UTC+5:30, mohit balwani wrote:
I have ideas of implementing functionalities in ODE mentioned in wiki page. with whom should I discuss it?
I have attached a pdf file in which there are shortcut tricks to solve linear ode, i don't know whether these methods are already implemented indirectly or will enhance the speed.But In my opinion if they are implemented then lot of work could be saved. For example if we look at method of undetermined coefficients, to find a particular integral of ode it solves for coefficient by comparing them and call solve which has matrix as argument. Now with the help of these tricks we do not need to call solve as it will directly find out the coefficients of particular integral. This pdf is handwritten notes and i have tried to write them as neat and understandable as possible and with each case i have also written 1 example so that it becomes easy to go through.
Oscar Benjamin
Jan 23, 2020, 1:44:30 PM1/23/20
to sympy
Those might be able to speed things up but not until the ODE module is
refactored. The reason the module needs to be refactored is that right
now it runs the whole of classify_ode including the matching code for
every single solver.
If it just returned the first match straight away and computed the
result it would be much faster. Then adding new fast methods that are
tried first can speed things up. As it stands though each method that
you add will probably just slow it down more. There needs to be a
refactor first so that classify_ode still works as expected even if
dsolve does something different.
refactored. The reason the module needs to be refactored is that right
now it runs the whole of classify_ode including the matching code for
every single solver.
If it just returned the first match straight away and computed the
result it would be much faster. Then adding new fast methods that are
tried first can speed things up. As it stands though each method that
you add will probably just slow it down more. There needs to be a
refactor first so that classify_ode still works as expected even if
dsolve does something different.
> --
> 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 sympy+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/2df1d019-75a6-48eb-a6ce-676337cda1a5%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 sympy+un...@googlegroups.com.
mohit balwani
Jan 23, 2020, 1:48:14 PM1/23/20
to sy...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for the response. I just wanted apporoval that,are they worth enough to implement? Now i will try to help in refactoring as soon as possible.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxR-9tiiEN8Fak_0czd19gtBTiL_Lna09CLWcck72e5j-A%40mail.gmail.com.
mohit balwani
Mar 6, 2020, 2:34:29 PM3/6/20
to sy...@googlegroups.com
I am planning to take Refactoring ODE module as a GSoC project.
For every solver we need to make it as a separate class so that classify_ode() can easily match the ode and return the solution right away. After that the test_ode.py also needs to be refactored as there are lot of redundant test and we can use data structures for maintaining and testing each and every part of test_ode.py.This will provide uniformity as there are some blocks which are not tested.
So will this be enough for GSoC'20?
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 12:14 AM Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j....@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxR-9tiiEN8Fak_0czd19gtBTiL_Lna09CLWcck72e5j-A%40mail.gmail.com.
Oscar Benjamin
Mar 6, 2020, 3:52:58 PM3/6/20
to sympy
Hi Mohit,
That's plenty enough for a GSOC project. You should try to go into
more detail in your proposal about exactly what you think should
happen though. Perhaps review all of the (single) ODE solvers that are
there now and how they can be refactored and simplified or improved in
the process.
Refactoring the tests so that they can be reused will make it possible
to run all solvers on all of the tested ODEs which will expose many
bugs in the individual solvers. You don't need to worry about having
enough to do if you start thinking about fixing those bugs! If I was
doing this work myself I would begin with refactoring the tests so
that I can use them to compare before/after performance while
refactoring the solving code.
I think this would be too much for one GSOC project but the ultimate
goal I would like is to see the ODE code organised more like
integral_steps with rules leading to other rules and so on so that we
can have step-by-step solutions and better debugging output. Many of
the solvers are actually using substitutions so we should make it
possible for a solver to simply match the ODE and say "use this
substitution". We can't even begin to implement a rule-based system
until dsolve is refactored though.
Oscar
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2BuBTuy4jfMssJJqd59oZO-zf3uA29sMFPxkmjnbwmMexA%40mail.gmail.com.
That's plenty enough for a GSOC project. You should try to go into
more detail in your proposal about exactly what you think should
happen though. Perhaps review all of the (single) ODE solvers that are
there now and how they can be refactored and simplified or improved in
the process.
Refactoring the tests so that they can be reused will make it possible
to run all solvers on all of the tested ODEs which will expose many
bugs in the individual solvers. You don't need to worry about having
enough to do if you start thinking about fixing those bugs! If I was
doing this work myself I would begin with refactoring the tests so
that I can use them to compare before/after performance while
refactoring the solving code.
I think this would be too much for one GSOC project but the ultimate
goal I would like is to see the ODE code organised more like
integral_steps with rules leading to other rules and so on so that we
can have step-by-step solutions and better debugging output. Many of
the solvers are actually using substitutions so we should make it
possible for a solver to simply match the ODE and say "use this
substitution". We can't even begin to implement a rule-based system
until dsolve is refactored though.
Oscar
mohit balwani
Mar 8, 2020, 4:24:06 AM3/8/20
to sy...@googlegroups.com
Hi, oscar
I started looking at the (Single) ODE solver closely and as suggested by you, they are to be refactored in the form of classes. After performing all this work it will be easier to maintain the code and whenever a new solver is to be added it will be very easy to add it. In my GSoC proposal what exactly I should elaborate on because refactoring different solvers will be based on either SinglePatternODESolver
or SingleODESolver only and both of the base classes are already implemented so we just have to inherit them. one thing I noted that there are helper functions in ode.py so I guess they should be moved to other file deutils.py may be.
so in my proposal should I show the code for one of the non-refactored solvers?
Thanks,
Mohit
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxSf5xAg2V0M1vF2xo%2B1_0C_s4P1pf8%3DPJwVKUYfNNRxyA%40mail.gmail.com.
mohit balwani
Mar 10, 2020, 6:30:04 AM3/10/20
to sy...@googlegroups.com, oscar.j....@gmail.com
Hi,
currently, there are 28 solvers in the ODE module out of which 6 solvers have been refactored already.
I have classified the remaining 22 solvers on the basis of their parent class whether they should inherit SinglePatternODESolver or SingleODESolver
SinglePatternODESolver
- separable
- separable_reduced
- linear_coefficients
- Liouville
- 2nd_linear_airy
- 2nd_linear_bessel
- 2nd_hypergeometrics
- 1st_exact
- 1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_indep_div_dep
- 1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_dep_div_indep
- 1st_power_series
- 2nd_power_series_ordinary
- 2nd_power_series_regular
- nth_linear_constant_coeff_homogeneous
- nth_linear_euler_eq_homogeneous
- nth_linear_constant_coeff_undetermined_coefficients
- nth_linear_euler_eq_nonhomogeneous_undetermined_coefficients
- nth_linear_constant_coeff_variation_of_parameters
- nth_linear_euler_eq_nonhomogeneous_variation_of_parameters
- nth_order_reducible
- 1st_homogeneous_coeff_best ( it just gives the best result from "1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_indep_div_dep" and "1st_homogeneous_coeff_subs_dep_div_indep")
- Lie_group
Any suggestions would be really helpful.
Regards,
Mohit
Oscar Benjamin
Mar 10, 2020, 9:36:57 AM3/10/20
to sympy
Hi Mohit,
I'm replying on the mailing list. I didn't realise we had gone
off-list in the last couple of emails.
This conversation belongs in the issue on github.
Oscar
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 13:29, mohit balwani
<mohitbalw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For pattern matching, I kept in mind that we can extract the elements of our general solution from the equation with direct matching just like First_linear. And for `SingleODESolver` there will be proper logic checking whether the given equation matches or not.
>
> I am a bit confused about how all linear solvers can be based on pattern because
> let's say we want to implement `nth_linear_constant_coeff_undetermined_coefficients`.
> its general equation is
>
> a_n f^{(n)}(x) + a_{n-1} f^{(n-1)}(x) + .. + a_1 f'(x) + a_0 f(x) = P(x)
>
> Now p(x) needs to have a finite number of linearly independent derivatives and in pattern matching to write general solution we should use the extracted elements given by wilds function.
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:18 PM Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think the series solvers should probably have their own superclass.
>> I'd like to move them out of normal dsolve anyway.
>>
>> Of the others I think that probably all the linear ones can be based
>> on the Pattern solver. You should give a rationale for why you have
>> divided them up like this.
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 10:29, mohit balwani
>> <mohitbalw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > +oscar.j....@gmail.com does this classification look good?
I'm replying on the mailing list. I didn't realise we had gone
off-list in the last couple of emails.
This conversation belongs in the issue on github.
Oscar
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 13:29, mohit balwani
<mohitbalw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For pattern matching, I kept in mind that we can extract the elements of our general solution from the equation with direct matching just like First_linear. And for `SingleODESolver` there will be proper logic checking whether the given equation matches or not.
>
> I am a bit confused about how all linear solvers can be based on pattern because
> let's say we want to implement `nth_linear_constant_coeff_undetermined_coefficients`.
> its general equation is
>
> a_n f^{(n)}(x) + a_{n-1} f^{(n-1)}(x) + .. + a_1 f'(x) + a_0 f(x) = P(x)
>
> Now p(x) needs to have a finite number of linearly independent derivatives and in pattern matching to write general solution we should use the extracted elements given by wilds function.
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:18 PM Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think the series solvers should probably have their own superclass.
>> I'd like to move them out of normal dsolve anyway.
>>
>> Of the others I think that probably all the linear ones can be based
>> on the Pattern solver. You should give a rationale for why you have
>> divided them up like this.
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 10:29, mohit balwani
>> <mohitbalw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
Oscar Benjamin
Mar 10, 2020, 11:45:20 AM3/10/20
to sympy
Hi Mohit,
You don't need to resend the previous emails. This discussion is
becoming too detailed though and belongs on the Github issue for
refactoring the ODE module:
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/18348
Oscar
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 15:26, mohit balwani
<mohitbalw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hello,
>
> so should I resend the previous mail to the mailing list?
>>> <mohitbalw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> > +oscar.j....@gmail.com does this classification look good?
You don't need to resend the previous emails. This discussion is
becoming too detailed though and belongs on the Github issue for
refactoring the ODE module:
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/18348
Oscar
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 15:26, mohit balwani
<mohitbalw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hello,
>
> so should I resend the previous mail to the mailing list?
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:59 PM mohit balwani <mohitbalw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> For pattern matching, I kept in mind that we can extract the elements of our general solution from the equation with direct matching just like First_linear. And for `SingleODESolver` there will be proper logic checking whether the given equation matches or not.
>>
>> I am a bit confused about how all linear solvers can be based on pattern because
>> let's say we want to implement `nth_linear_constant_coeff_undetermined_coefficients`.
>> its general equation is
>>
>> a_n f^{(n)}(x) + a_{n-1} f^{(n-1)}(x) + .. + a_1 f'(x) + a_0 f(x) = P(x)
>>
>> Now p(x) needs to have a finite number of linearly independent derivatives and in pattern matching to write general solution we should use the extracted elements given by wilds function.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:18 PM Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the series solvers should probably have their own superclass.
>>> I'd like to move them out of normal dsolve anyway.
>>>
>>> Of the others I think that probably all the linear ones can be based
>>> on the Pattern solver. You should give a rationale for why you have
>>> divided them up like this.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 10:29, mohit balwani
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:59 PM mohit balwani <mohitbalw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> For pattern matching, I kept in mind that we can extract the elements of our general solution from the equation with direct matching just like First_linear. And for `SingleODESolver` there will be proper logic checking whether the given equation matches or not.
>>
>> I am a bit confused about how all linear solvers can be based on pattern because
>> let's say we want to implement `nth_linear_constant_coeff_undetermined_coefficients`.
>> its general equation is
>>
>> a_n f^{(n)}(x) + a_{n-1} f^{(n-1)}(x) + .. + a_1 f'(x) + a_0 f(x) = P(x)
>>
>> Now p(x) needs to have a finite number of linearly independent derivatives and in pattern matching to write general solution we should use the extracted elements given by wilds function.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:18 PM Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the series solvers should probably have their own superclass.
>>> I'd like to move them out of normal dsolve anyway.
>>>
>>> Of the others I think that probably all the linear ones can be based
>>> on the Pattern solver. You should give a rationale for why you have
>>> divided them up like this.
>>>
>>> <mohitbalw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
mohit balwani
Mar 11, 2020, 3:19:14 PM3/11/20
to sy...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
Here is rough draft of my GSoC proposal
Any suggestions would really be appreciated.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxS_jx5EeJ2jSefgTGEXDY_D86C4i85178H26nCYEcrkPA%40mail.gmail.com.
Oscar Benjamin
Mar 11, 2020, 7:45:23 PM3/11/20
to sympy
I think it would be good to spend more time explaining what changes
you will make and why.
Don't assume that someone reviewing this proposal will understand the
current problems of the ODE module or why your proposal is beneficial.
You should make it clear to them what the problems are and how your
proposed changes will lead to tangible improvements. (This advice
applies to all GSOC applicants)
--
Oscar
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 19:19, mohit balwani
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2Buv0SrJtnusseGyGDwUqOBM-vGmTv5Z%2B4CwONdomBt%3D_Q%40mail.gmail.com.
you will make and why.
Don't assume that someone reviewing this proposal will understand the
current problems of the ODE module or why your proposal is beneficial.
You should make it clear to them what the problems are and how your
proposed changes will lead to tangible improvements. (This advice
applies to all GSOC applicants)
--
Oscar
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 19:19, mohit balwani
mohit balwani
Mar 13, 2020, 12:57:39 PM3/13/20
to sy...@googlegroups.com
hello,
I have made some changes in project motivation. Does this look good or Should I detail that more?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxQvJeYsxKjg8au9JtG%2BP9n%2BNzx0S9xBMuynQeUqRUJS8w%40mail.gmail.com.
mohit balwani
Mar 15, 2020, 7:51:29 AM3/15/20
to sympy
+oscar.j....@gmail.com can you please review the changes in proposal so that i know what i need to make changes in it?
>> >>> >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sympy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> >>> >>> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/2df1d019-75a6-48eb-a6ce-676337cda1a5%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 sympy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> >>> >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxR-9tiiEN8Fak_0czd19gtBTiL_Lna09CLWcck72e5j-A%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 sympy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> >>> >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2BuBTuy4jfMssJJqd59oZO-zf3uA29sMFPxkmjnbwmMexA%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 sympy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> >>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxSf5xAg2V0M1vF2xo%2B1_0C_s4P1pf8%3DPJwVKUYfNNRxyA%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 sympy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxS_jx5EeJ2jSefgTGEXDY_D86C4i85178H26nCYEcrkPA%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 sympy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2Buv0SrJtnusseGyGDwUqOBM-vGmTv5Z%2B4CwONdomBt%3D_Q%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 sympy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Oscar Benjamin
Mar 15, 2020, 10:10:09 AM3/15/20
to sympy
I think it would be better to refactor the tests at the start as in
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/18377
That can significantly increase test coverage which gives more
confidence when refactoring everything else. It would also make it
possible to compare timings before and after the refactor.
>>> >> >>> >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sympy+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/6befc892-802b-4190-9779-c27f3e27adde%40googlegroups.com.
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/18377
That can significantly increase test coverage which gives more
confidence when refactoring everything else. It would also make it
possible to compare timings before and after the refactor.
>>> >> >>> >>> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/2df1d019-75a6-48eb-a6ce-676337cda1a5%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 sympy+un...@googlegroups.com.
>>> >> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >>> >> --
>>> >> >>> >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group.
>>> >> >>> >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxR-9tiiEN8Fak_0czd19gtBTiL_Lna09CLWcck72e5j-A%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 sympy+un...@googlegroups.com.
>>> >> >>> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >>> > --
>>> >> >>> >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group.
>>> >> >>> >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2BuBTuy4jfMssJJqd59oZO-zf3uA29sMFPxkmjnbwmMexA%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 sympy+un...@googlegroups.com.
>>> >> >>> >>>
>>> >> >>> >>> --
>>> >> >>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group.
>>> >> >>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxSf5xAg2V0M1vF2xo%2B1_0C_s4P1pf8%3DPJwVKUYfNNRxyA%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 sympy+un...@googlegroups.com.
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group.
>>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxS_jx5EeJ2jSefgTGEXDY_D86C4i85178H26nCYEcrkPA%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 sympy+un...@googlegroups.com.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group.
>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2Buv0SrJtnusseGyGDwUqOBM-vGmTv5Z%2B4CwONdomBt%3D_Q%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 sympy+un...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxQvJeYsxKjg8au9JtG%2BP9n%2BNzx0S9xBMuynQeUqRUJS8w%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 sympy+un...@googlegroups.com.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/6befc892-802b-4190-9779-c27f3e27adde%40googlegroups.com.
mohit balwani
Mar 20, 2020, 4:25:59 AM3/20/20
to sy...@googlegroups.com
+oscar.j....@gmail.com I have made changes you suggested about refactoring test_ode.py in phase-I. could you please review it again?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxQNG0rnRMdvrf%2BGB-9k%3D_odncVq%3DL%3D_QD-sdyXL3t95qQ%40mail.gmail.com.
mohit balwani
Mar 21, 2020, 12:45:58 PM3/21/20
to sy...@googlegroups.com
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1slfj2CJRgKpmf0zOW93YkxYUDUvutTmkDX6BmsFfmIs/edit?usp=sharing
can someone provide feedback on this?
mohit balwani
Mar 25, 2020, 12:11:12 PM3/25/20
to sy...@googlegroups.com
Hello everyone,
I have made a final draft proposal on "Refactoring the ODE module and make it fast". If someone can please review this and suggest changes so that I can incorporate them accordingly before the GSoC timeline.
link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1slfj2CJRgKpmf0zOW93YkxYUDUvutTmkDX6BmsFfmIs/edit?usp=sharing
waiting for the feedback.
Thanks.
Oscar Benjamin
Mar 25, 2020, 5:50:30 PM3/25/20
to sympy
I had a quick look and it seems reasonable.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAGoPB%2BvEdS%2Bbye3qCz3NSYAFvNGNMuDmNykP%2Bq4R0TskfLO6KQ%40mail.gmail.com.
mohit balwani
Mar 26, 2020, 2:26:36 AM3/26/20
to sy...@googlegroups.com
Thank you for response. So should i submit this proposal?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxQmbcjjfAMjqjATdA%3Da6qNU8fBk%3D_F%3Duiq9CpPjfgvR-Q%40mail.gmail.com.
mohit balwani
Mar 29, 2020, 11:45:41 AM3/29/20
to sy...@googlegroups.com
Hello mentors,
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages