Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1
Hello guys, I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented this error in issue 8054 on github. I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this paper: (Buhring, An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1. Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask the group the following: 1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want this fixed. 2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background is physics and so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently diverges. 3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for the case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this limit case and have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? I ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code. Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time trying to contribute to scipy... --Adam
Hey Adam,
Does this sound like a worthwhile PR?
Yes, definitely
Does the implementation sound reasonable?
It's been a while since I've thought about this, but if I recall correctly the problematic region you've found is one that comes up quite frequently--see e.g. page 14 in http://fredrikj.net/math/hypgeom.pdf Floating around in the ether is a method credited to Bill Gosper for handling that region which also uses a recurrence relation (maybe related to/the same as in the paper you cited)? I can never seem to find the original reference (dead link), but I've attached someone's writeup of it. So, your implementation sounds reasonable, but if you really want to dig into it you could check out the Gosper stuff and see how they compare.
Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR?
It's implicit in the literature, so I think it's fine.
I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string
The Buhring paper. The formula is something that an informed reader could figure out after reading it.
I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?)
If I recall correctly people were opposed to adding LaTeX docs. (But maybe I recall incorrectly; if so please someone correct me.) I also have various special function write ups that might be handy for future devs... maybe in a separate repo? On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Hello guys,
I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented this error in issue 8054 on github.
I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this paper: (Buhring, An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1.
Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask the group the following:
1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want this fixed.
2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background is physics and so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently diverges.
3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for the case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this limit case and have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? I ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code.
Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time trying to contribute to scipy...
--Adam
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
Okay cool; thanks for the helpful reply! I'll look at Gosper's method and see how it compares with Buhring's method. For now I'll plan on doing a PR that implements one of these two methods. I was just worried that I might end up doing a lot of work on a PR that implements Buhring's series only to have a reviewer reject it saying "Well, you should have used such-and-such's algorithm which is must faster, much more accurate, etc." I'll also hold off on adding a latex doc to the repo of the actual formulas used for the b-a=integer special case (unless I hear otherwise). Thanks again! --Adam -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:35 AM To: SciPy Developers List Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1 Hey Adam,
Does this sound like a worthwhile PR?
Yes, definitely
Does the implementation sound reasonable?
It's been a while since I've thought about this, but if I recall correctly the problematic region you've found is one that comes up quite frequently--see e.g. page 14 in http://fredrikj.net/math/hypgeom.pdf Floating around in the ether is a method credited to Bill Gosper for handling that region which also uses a recurrence relation (maybe related to/the same as in the paper you cited)? I can never seem to find the original reference (dead link), but I've attached someone's writeup of it. So, your implementation sounds reasonable, but if you really want to dig into it you could check out the Gosper stuff and see how they compare.
Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR?
It's implicit in the literature, so I think it's fine.
I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string
The Buhring paper. The formula is something that an informed reader could figure out after reading it.
I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?)
If I recall correctly people were opposed to adding LaTeX docs. (But maybe I recall incorrectly; if so please someone correct me.) I also have various special function write ups that might be handy for future devs... maybe in a separate repo? On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Hello guys,
I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented this error in issue 8054 on github.
I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this paper: (Buhring, An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1.
Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask the group the following:
1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want this fixed.
2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background is physics and so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently diverges.
3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for the case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this limit case and have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? I ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code.
Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time trying to contribute to scipy...
--Adam
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
Concerning the actual formulas: there's a compromise between leaving them implicit and creating a separate LaTeX doc. You could add the formulas to the docstring <https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/8a994cac55f6ec5d4279d9910ac3cee9f5c6a2be...>. The LaTeX will render in the HTML version of the documentation (example <https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.special.jv.html#s...>). I'm not sure how the maintainers feel about this, though (this is just a suggestion from a "private citizen"). On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Okay cool; thanks for the helpful reply!
I'll look at Gosper's method and see how it compares with Buhring's method. For now I'll plan on doing a PR that implements one of these two methods. I was just worried that I might end up doing a lot of work on a PR that implements Buhring's series only to have a reviewer reject it saying "Well, you should have used such-and-such's algorithm which is must faster, much more accurate, etc."
I'll also hold off on adding a latex doc to the repo of the actual formulas used for the b-a=integer special case (unless I hear otherwise).
Thanks again!
--Adam
-----Original Message----- From: Joshua Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:35 AM To: SciPy Developers List Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1
Hey Adam,
Does this sound like a worthwhile PR?
Yes, definitely
Does the implementation sound reasonable?
It's been a while since I've thought about this, but if I recall correctly the problematic region you've found is one that comes up quite frequently--see e.g. page 14 in
http://fredrikj.net/math/hypgeom.pdf
Floating around in the ether is a method credited to Bill Gosper for handling that region which also uses a recurrence relation (maybe related to/the same as in the paper you cited)? I can never seem to find the original reference (dead link), but I've attached someone's writeup of it.
So, your implementation sounds reasonable, but if you really want to dig into it you could check out the Gosper stuff and see how they compare.
Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR?
It's implicit in the literature, so I think it's fine.
I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string
The Buhring paper. The formula is something that an informed reader could figure out after reading it.
I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?)
If I recall correctly people were opposed to adding LaTeX docs. (But maybe I recall incorrectly; if so please someone correct me.) I also have various special function write ups that might be handy for future devs... maybe in a separate repo?
Hello guys,
I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented this error in issue 8054 on github.
I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this paper: (Buhring, An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1.
Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask the group the following:
1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want this fixed.
2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background is physics and so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently diverges.
3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote: the
case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this limit case and have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? I ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code.
Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time trying to contribute to scipy...
--Adam
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Ted Pudlik <tpudlik@gmail.com> wrote:
Concerning the actual formulas: there's a compromise between leaving them implicit and creating a separate LaTeX doc. You could add the formulas to the docstring <https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/8a994cac55f6ec5d4279d9910ac3cee9f5c6a2be...>. The LaTeX will render in the HTML version of the documentation (example <https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.special.jv.html#s...>). I'm not sure how the maintainers feel about this, though (this is just a suggestion from a "private citizen").
In general: using LaTeX can be a good idea, the one thing that has to be kept in mind is readability as plain text (important both for reading docstrings in IPython terminal and when working on the code in an editor). Best to add LaTeX formulas to the Notes section rather than in the first sentences. And avoid usage of things like \left[ that make the rendered html slightly prettier but the actual math much harder to read as plain text. Here's a recent PR with discussion about various LaTeX styles: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7756. The style that got merged is about right. Cheers, Ralf
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Okay cool; thanks for the helpful reply!
I'll look at Gosper's method and see how it compares with Buhring's method. For now I'll plan on doing a PR that implements one of these two methods. I was just worried that I might end up doing a lot of work on a PR that implements Buhring's series only to have a reviewer reject it saying "Well, you should have used such-and-such's algorithm which is must faster, much more accurate, etc."
I'll also hold off on adding a latex doc to the repo of the actual formulas used for the b-a=integer special case (unless I hear otherwise).
Thanks again!
--Adam
-----Original Message----- From: Joshua Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:35 AM To: SciPy Developers List Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1
Hey Adam,
Does this sound like a worthwhile PR?
Yes, definitely
Does the implementation sound reasonable?
It's been a while since I've thought about this, but if I recall correctly the problematic region you've found is one that comes up quite frequently--see e.g. page 14 in
http://fredrikj.net/math/hypgeom.pdf
Floating around in the ether is a method credited to Bill Gosper for handling that region which also uses a recurrence relation (maybe related to/the same as in the paper you cited)? I can never seem to find the original reference (dead link), but I've attached someone's writeup of it.
So, your implementation sounds reasonable, but if you really want to dig into it you could check out the Gosper stuff and see how they compare.
Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR?
It's implicit in the literature, so I think it's fine.
I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string
The Buhring paper. The formula is something that an informed reader could figure out after reading it.
I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?)
If I recall correctly people were opposed to adding LaTeX docs. (But maybe I recall incorrectly; if so please someone correct me.) I also have various special function write ups that might be handy for future devs... maybe in a separate repo?
Hello guys,
I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented this error in issue 8054 on github.
I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this paper: (Buhring, An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1.
Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask the group the following:
1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want this fixed.
2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background is physics and so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently diverges.
3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote: the
case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this limit case and have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? I ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code.
Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time trying to contribute to scipy...
--Adam
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
One possibility: Currently the only more extensive Latex based documentation is in the tutorial. I think it would be possible to add a technical appendix or something like that to the scipy.special tutorial, a bit similar to the distributions formulas attached to the stats tutorial. For example Boost, last time I checked, had long documentation for the special functions, which might be too long to fit in docstrings. I don't know how much there would be for special functions and whether it is difficult to maintain those notes. However, I think it would be good to have notes that developers have already written available for future developers and users that are interested in technical details. Josef On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Ted Pudlik <tpudlik@gmail.com> wrote:
Concerning the actual formulas: there's a compromise between leaving them implicit and creating a separate LaTeX doc. You could add the formulas to the docstring <https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/8a994cac55f6ec5d4279d9910ac3cee9f5c6a2be...>. The LaTeX will render in the HTML version of the documentation (example <https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.special.jv.html#s...>). I'm not sure how the maintainers feel about this, though (this is just a suggestion from a "private citizen").
In general: using LaTeX can be a good idea, the one thing that has to be kept in mind is readability as plain text (important both for reading docstrings in IPython terminal and when working on the code in an editor). Best to add LaTeX formulas to the Notes section rather than in the first sentences. And avoid usage of things like \left[ that make the rendered html slightly prettier but the actual math much harder to read as plain text.
Here's a recent PR with discussion about various LaTeX styles: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7756. The style that got merged is about right.
Cheers, Ralf
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Okay cool; thanks for the helpful reply!
I'll look at Gosper's method and see how it compares with Buhring's method. For now I'll plan on doing a PR that implements one of these two methods. I was just worried that I might end up doing a lot of work on a PR that implements Buhring's series only to have a reviewer reject it saying "Well, you should have used such-and-such's algorithm which is must faster, much more accurate, etc."
I'll also hold off on adding a latex doc to the repo of the actual formulas used for the b-a=integer special case (unless I hear otherwise).
Thanks again!
--Adam
-----Original Message----- From: Joshua Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:35 AM To: SciPy Developers List Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1
Hey Adam,
Does this sound like a worthwhile PR?
Yes, definitely
Does the implementation sound reasonable?
It's been a while since I've thought about this, but if I recall correctly the problematic region you've found is one that comes up quite frequently--see e.g. page 14 in
http://fredrikj.net/math/hypgeom.pdf
Floating around in the ether is a method credited to Bill Gosper for handling that region which also uses a recurrence relation (maybe related to/the same as in the paper you cited)? I can never seem to find the original reference (dead link), but I've attached someone's writeup of it.
So, your implementation sounds reasonable, but if you really want to dig into it you could check out the Gosper stuff and see how they compare.
Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR?
It's implicit in the literature, so I think it's fine.
I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string
The Buhring paper. The formula is something that an informed reader could figure out after reading it.
I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?)
If I recall correctly people were opposed to adding LaTeX docs. (But maybe I recall incorrectly; if so please someone correct me.) I also have various special function write ups that might be handy for future devs... maybe in a separate repo?
Hello guys,
I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented this error in issue 8054 on github.
I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this paper: (Buhring, An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1.
Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask the group
following:
1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want this fixed.
2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background is physics and so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently diverges.
3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote: the the
case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this limit case and have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? I ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code.
Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time trying to contribute to scipy...
--Adam
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
I can certainly add the formulas to the doc string if that's what people want. My only concern is that the a-b=m case involves about a page of formula's and would take a lot of space in the doc string (I've attached the pdf from my latex file of the formulas). Originally I was thinking that the docstring would just contain some reference to the pdf document, e.g., "See the pdf at location X for the method used when a-b is an integer." But like I said, I can put them wherever they need to go; I justed wanted to make sure that future maintainers have some reference as to what the code is trying to do... --Adam On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 08:54 -0400, josef.pktd@gmail.com wrote:
One possibility: Currently the only more extensive Latex based documentation is in the tutorial. I think it would be possible to add a technical appendix or something like that to the scipy.special tutorial, a bit similar to the distributions formulas attached to the stats tutorial.
For example Boost, last time I checked, had long documentation for the special functions, which might be too long to fit in docstrings.
I don't know how much there would be for special functions and whether it is difficult to maintain those notes. However, I think it would be good to have notes that developers have already written available for future developers and users that are interested in technical details.
Josef
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Ted Pudlik <tpudlik@gmail.com> wrote:
Concerning the actual formulas: there's a compromise between leaving them implicit and creating a separate LaTeX doc. You could add the formulas to the docstring. The LaTeX will render in the HTML version of the documentation (example). I'm not sure how the maintainers feel about this, though (this is just a suggestion from a "private citizen").
In general: using LaTeX can be a good idea, the one thing that has to be kept in mind is readability as plain text (important both for reading docstrings in IPython terminal and when working on the code in an editor). Best to add LaTeX formulas to the Notes section rather than in the first sentences. And avoid usage of things like \left[ that make the rendered html slightly prettier but the actual math much harder to read as plain text.
Here's a recent PR with discussion about various LaTeX styles: http s://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7756. The style that got merged is about right.
Cheers, Ralf
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Okay cool; thanks for the helpful reply!
I'll look at Gosper's method and see how it compares with Buhring's method. For now I'll plan on doing a PR that implements one of these two methods. I was just worried that I might end up doing a lot of work on a PR that implements Buhring's series only to have a reviewer reject it saying "Well, you should have used such-and-such's algorithm which is must faster, much more accurate, etc."
I'll also hold off on adding a latex doc to the repo of the actual formulas used for the b-a=integer special case (unless I hear otherwise).
Thanks again!
--Adam
-----Original Message----- From: Joshua Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:35 AM To: SciPy Developers List Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1
Hey Adam,
Does this sound like a worthwhile PR?
Yes, definitely
Does the implementation sound reasonable?
It's been a while since I've thought about this, but if I recall correctly the problematic region you've found is one that comes up quite frequently--see e.g. page 14 in
http://fredrikj.net/math/hypgeom.pdf
Floating around in the ether is a method credited to Bill Gosper for handling that region which also uses a recurrence relation (maybe related to/the same as in the paper you cited)? I can never seem to find the original reference (dead link), but I've attached someone's writeup of it.
So, your implementation sounds reasonable, but if you really want to dig into it you could check out the Gosper stuff and see how they compare.
Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR?
It's implicit in the literature, so I think it's fine.
I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string
The Buhring paper. The formula is something that an informed reader could figure out after reading it.
I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?)
If I recall correctly people were opposed to adding LaTeX docs. (But maybe I recall incorrectly; if so please someone correct me.) I also have various special function write ups that might be handy for future devs... maybe in a separate repo?
Hello guys,
I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented
issue 8054 on github.
I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this
An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1.
Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask
following:
1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote: this error in paper: (Buhring, the group the this fixed.
2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background is
so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently
physics and diverges.
3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in
literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for the case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this
have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in
ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code.
Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time
the limit case and the PR? I trying to
contribute to scipy...
--Adam
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
Hey guys, How do I view the html version of a functions docstring? I've added my Buhring reference to the docstring and I want to see how it renders in HTML. I've tried both methods described in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blo b/master/doc/README.txt but neither of them worked. When I try: (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-dev/scipy$ python setup.py build_sphinx I get: (...blah...blah...) usage: setup.py [global_opts] cmd1 [cmd1_opts] [cmd2 [cmd2_opts] ...] or: setup.py --help [cmd1 cmd2 ...] or: setup.py --help-commands or: setup.py cmd --help error: invalid command 'build_sphinx' When I try : (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-dev/scipy/doc$ make html I do in fact get a bunch of html in the folders build/html, but the html for hyp2f1 doesn't contain my edits. I've tried building html after reinstalling my dev version of scipy, but that didn't change anything. Thanks for any help! --Adam On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:23 -0700, Adam wrote:
I can certainly add the formulas to the doc string if that's what people want. My only concern is that the a-b=m case involves about a page of formula's and would take a lot of space in the doc string (I've attached the pdf from my latex file of the formulas). Originally I was thinking that the docstring would just contain some reference to the pdf document, e.g., "See the pdf at location X for the method used when a-b is an integer."
But like I said, I can put them wherever they need to go; I justed wanted to make sure that future maintainers have some reference as to what the code is trying to do...
--Adam
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 08:54 -0400, josef.pktd@gmail.com wrote:
One possibility: Currently the only more extensive Latex based documentation is in the tutorial. I think it would be possible to add a technical appendix or something like that to the scipy.special tutorial, a bit similar to the distributions formulas attached to the stats tutorial.
For example Boost, last time I checked, had long documentation for the special functions, which might be too long to fit in docstrings.
I don't know how much there would be for special functions and whether it is difficult to maintain those notes. However, I think it would be good to have notes that developers have already written available for future developers and users that are interested in technical details.
Josef
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Ralf Gommers om> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Ted Pudlik <tpudlik@gmail.com> wrote:
Concerning the actual formulas: there's a compromise between leaving them implicit and creating a separate LaTeX doc. You could add the formulas to the docstring. The LaTeX will render in the HTML version of the documentation (example). I'm not sure how the maintainers feel about this, though (this is just a suggestion from a "private citizen").
In general: using LaTeX can be a good idea, the one thing that has to be kept in mind is readability as plain text (important both for reading docstrings in IPython terminal and when working on the code in an editor). Best to add LaTeX formulas to the Notes section rather than in the first sentences. And avoid usage of things like \left[ that make the rendered html slightly prettier but the actual math much harder to read as plain text.
Here's a recent PR with discussion about various LaTeX styles: ht tps://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7756. The style that got merged is about right.
Cheers, Ralf
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Okay cool; thanks for the helpful reply!
I'll look at Gosper's method and see how it compares with Buhring's method. For now I'll plan on doing a PR that implements one of these two methods. I was just worried that I might end up doing a lot of work on a PR that implements Buhring's series only to have a reviewer reject it saying "Well, you should have used such-and-such's algorithm which is must faster, much more accurate, etc."
I'll also hold off on adding a latex doc to the repo of the actual formulas used for the b-a=integer special case (unless I hear otherwise).
Thanks again!
--Adam
-----Original Message----- From: Joshua Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:35 AM To: SciPy Developers List Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1
Hey Adam,
Does this sound like a worthwhile PR?
Yes, definitely
Does the implementation sound reasonable?
It's been a while since I've thought about this, but if I recall correctly the problematic region you've found is one that comes up quite frequently--see e.g. page 14 in
http://fredrikj.net/math/hypgeom.pdf
Floating around in the ether is a method credited to Bill Gosper for handling that region which also uses a recurrence relation (maybe related to/the same as in the paper you cited)? I can never seem to find the original reference (dead link), but I've attached someone's writeup of it.
So, your implementation sounds reasonable, but if you really want to dig into it you could check out the Gosper stuff and see how they compare.
Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR?
It's implicit in the literature, so I think it's fine.
I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string
The Buhring paper. The formula is something that an informed reader could figure out after reading it.
I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?)
If I recall correctly people were opposed to adding LaTeX docs. (But maybe I recall incorrectly; if so please someone correct me.) I also have various special function write ups that might be handy for future devs... maybe in a separate repo?
Hello guys,
I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented this error in issue 8054 on github.
I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this
An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1.
Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask
following:
1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote: paper: (Buhring, the group the this fixed.
2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background
so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently
is physics and diverges.
3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear
literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for the case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this
have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? I ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code.
Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time
in the limit case and trying to
contribute to scipy...
--Adam
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
I do in fact get a bunch of html in the folders build/html, but the html for hyp2f1 doesn't contain my edits
If I recall correctly, Sphinx doesn't detect changes in the `_ufuncs` extension module. Maybe try forcing a complete rebuild with `make SPHINXOPTS=-Ea html`. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Hey guys,
How do I view the html version of a functions docstring? I've added my Buhring reference to the docstring and I want to see how it renders in HTML.
I've tried both methods described in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/doc/README.txt but neither of them worked.
When I try: (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-dev/scipy$ python setup.py build_sphinx I get: (...blah...blah...) usage: setup.py [global_opts] cmd1 [cmd1_opts] [cmd2 [cmd2_opts] ...] or: setup.py --help [cmd1 cmd2 ...] or: setup.py --help-commands or: setup.py cmd --help error: invalid command 'build_sphinx'
When I try : (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-dev/scipy/doc$ make html
I do in fact get a bunch of html in the folders build/html, but the html for hyp2f1 doesn't contain my edits. I've tried building html after reinstalling my dev version of scipy, but that didn't change anything.
Thanks for any help!
--Adam
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:23 -0700, Adam wrote:
I can certainly add the formulas to the doc string if that's what people want. My only concern is that the a-b=m case involves about a page of formula's and would take a lot of space in the doc string (I've attached the pdf from my latex file of the formulas). Originally I was thinking that the docstring would just contain some reference to the pdf document, e.g., "See the pdf at location X for the method used when a-b is an integer."
But like I said, I can put them wherever they need to go; I justed wanted to make sure that future maintainers have some reference as to what the code is trying to do...
--Adam
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 08:54 -0400, josef.pktd@gmail.com wrote:
One possibility: Currently the only more extensive Latex based documentation is in the tutorial. I think it would be possible to add a technical appendix or something like that to the scipy.special tutorial, a bit similar to the distributions formulas attached to the stats tutorial.
For example Boost, last time I checked, had long documentation for the special functions, which might be too long to fit in docstrings.
I don't know how much there would be for special functions and whether it is difficult to maintain those notes. However, I think it would be good to have notes that developers have already written available for future developers and users that are interested in technical details.
Josef
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Ted Pudlik <tpudlik@gmail.com> wrote:
Concerning the actual formulas: there's a compromise between leaving them implicit and creating a separate LaTeX doc. You could add the formulas to the docstring. The LaTeX will render in the HTML version of the documentation (example). I'm not sure how the maintainers feel about this, though (this is just a suggestion from a "private citizen").
In general: using LaTeX can be a good idea, the one thing that has to be kept in mind is readability as plain text (important both for reading docstrings in IPython terminal and when working on the code in an editor). Best to add LaTeX formulas to the Notes section rather than in the first sentences. And avoid usage of things like \left[ that make the rendered html slightly prettier but the actual math much harder to read as plain text.
Here's a recent PR with discussion about various LaTeX styles: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7756. The style that got merged is about right.
Cheers, Ralf
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Okay cool; thanks for the helpful reply!
I'll look at Gosper's method and see how it compares with Buhring's method. For now I'll plan on doing a PR that implements one of these two methods. I was just worried that I might end up doing a lot of work on a PR that implements Buhring's series only to have a reviewer reject it saying "Well, you should have used such-and-such's algorithm which is must faster, much more accurate, etc."
I'll also hold off on adding a latex doc to the repo of the actual formulas used for the b-a=integer special case (unless I hear otherwise).
Thanks again!
--Adam
-----Original Message----- From: Joshua Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:35 AM To: SciPy Developers List Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1
Hey Adam,
Does this sound like a worthwhile PR?
Yes, definitely
Does the implementation sound reasonable?
It's been a while since I've thought about this, but if I recall correctly the problematic region you've found is one that comes up quite frequently--see e.g. page 14 in
http://fredrikj.net/math/hypgeom.pdf
Floating around in the ether is a method credited to Bill Gosper for handling that region which also uses a recurrence relation (maybe related to/the same as in the paper you cited)? I can never seem to find the original reference (dead link), but I've attached someone's writeup of it.
So, your implementation sounds reasonable, but if you really want to dig into it you could check out the Gosper stuff and see how they compare.
Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR?
It's implicit in the literature, so I think it's fine.
I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string
The Buhring paper. The formula is something that an informed reader could figure out after reading it.
I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?)
If I recall correctly people were opposed to adding LaTeX docs. (But maybe I recall incorrectly; if so please someone correct me.) I also have various special function write ups that might be handy for future devs... maybe in a separate repo?
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Hello guys,
I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented this error in issue 8054 on github.
I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this paper: (Buhring, An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1.
Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask the group the following:
1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want this fixed.
2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background is physics and so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently diverges.
3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for the case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this limit case and have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? I ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code.
Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time trying to contribute to scipy...
--Adam
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
I figured it out and it appears I wasn't running _generate_ufuncs.py beforehand... That said, the generated HTML still doesn't render my equations as a latex equation. That is to say, my output looks like: Is there a way of generating HTML that renders the latex equations? Like it appears on the https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/gener ated/scipy.special.hyp2f1.html Bonus question: Is the 2nd author of the first reference misspelled, i.e., Jjie [sic]? Shouldn't the entire reference be:S. Zhang, J. Jin "Computation of Special Functions", Wiley, 1996? See h ttps://books.google.com/books/about/Computation_of_special_functions.ht ml?id=ASfvAAAAMAAJ I can fix the first reference in my PR as well... --Adam On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 20:52 -0500, Joshua Wilson wrote:
I do in fact get a bunch of html in the folders build/html, but the html for hyp2f1 doesn't contain my edits
If I recall correctly, Sphinx doesn't detect changes in the `_ufuncs` extension module. Maybe try forcing a complete rebuild with `make SPHINXOPTS=-Ea html`.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Hey guys,
How do I view the html version of a functions docstring? I've added my Buhring reference to the docstring and I want to see how it renders in HTML.
I've tried both methods described in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/doc/README.txt but neither of them worked.
When I try: (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-dev/scipy$ python setup.py build_sphinx I get: (...blah...blah...) usage: setup.py [global_opts] cmd1 [cmd1_opts] [cmd2 [cmd2_opts] ...] or: setup.py --help [cmd1 cmd2 ...] or: setup.py --help-commands or: setup.py cmd --help error: invalid command 'build_sphinx'
When I try : (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-dev/scipy/doc$ make html
I do in fact get a bunch of html in the folders build/html, but the html for hyp2f1 doesn't contain my edits. I've tried building html after reinstalling my dev version of scipy, but that didn't change anything.
Thanks for any help!
--Adam
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:23 -0700, Adam wrote:
I can certainly add the formulas to the doc string if that's what people want. My only concern is that the a-b=m case involves about a page of formula's and would take a lot of space in the doc string (I've attached the pdf from my latex file of the formulas). Originally I was thinking that the docstring would just contain some reference to the pdf document, e.g., "See the pdf at location X for the method used when a-b is an integer."
But like I said, I can put them wherever they need to go; I justed wanted to make sure that future maintainers have some reference as to what the code is trying to do...
--Adam
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 08:54 -0400, josef.pktd@gmail.com wrote:
One possibility: Currently the only more extensive Latex based documentation is in the tutorial. I think it would be possible to add a technical appendix or something like that to the scipy.special tutorial, a bit similar to the distributions formulas attached to the stats tutorial.
For example Boost, last time I checked, had long documentation for the special functions, which might be too long to fit in docstrings.
I don't know how much there would be for special functions and whether it is difficult to maintain those notes. However, I think it would be good to have notes that developers have already written available for future developers and users that are interested in technical details.
Josef
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Ted Pudlik <tpudlik@gmail.com> wrote:
Concerning the actual formulas: there's a compromise between leaving them implicit and creating a separate LaTeX doc. You could add the formulas to the docstring. The LaTeX will render in the HTML version of the documentation (example). I'm not sure how the maintainers feel about this, though (this is just a suggestion from a "private citizen").
In general: using LaTeX can be a good idea, the one thing that has to be kept in mind is readability as plain text (important both for reading docstrings in IPython terminal and when working on the code in an editor). Best to add LaTeX formulas to the Notes section rather than in the first sentences. And avoid usage of things like \left[ that make the rendered html slightly prettier but the actual math much harder to read as plain text.
Here's a recent PR with discussion about various LaTeX styles: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7756. The style that got merged is about right.
Cheers, Ralf
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Okay cool; thanks for the helpful reply!
I'll look at Gosper's method and see how it compares with Buhring's method. For now I'll plan on doing a PR that implements one of these two methods. I was just worried that I might end up doing a lot of work on a PR that implements Buhring's series only to have a reviewer reject it saying "Well, you should have used such-and-such's algorithm which is must faster, much more accurate, etc."
I'll also hold off on adding a latex doc to the repo of the actual formulas used for the b-a=integer special case (unless I hear otherwise).
Thanks again!
--Adam
-----Original Message----- From: Joshua Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:35 AM To: SciPy Developers List Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1
Hey Adam,
Does this sound like a worthwhile PR?
Yes, definitely
Does the implementation sound reasonable?
It's been a while since I've thought about this, but if I recall correctly the problematic region you've found is one that comes up quite frequently--see e.g. page 14 in
http://fredrikj.net/math/hypgeom.pdf
Floating around in the ether is a method credited to Bill Gosper for handling that region which also uses a recurrence relation (maybe related to/the same as in the paper you cited)? I can never seem to find the original reference (dead link), but I've attached someone's writeup of it.
So, your implementation sounds reasonable, but if you really want to dig into it you could check out the Gosper stuff and see how they compare.
Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR?
It's implicit in the literature, so I think it's fine.
I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string
The Buhring paper. The formula is something that an informed reader could figure out after reading it.
I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?)
If I recall correctly people were opposed to adding LaTeX docs. (But maybe I recall incorrectly; if so please someone correct me.) I also have various special function write ups that might be handy for future devs... maybe in a separate repo?
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Hello guys,
I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented this error in issue 8054 on github.
I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this paper: (Buhring, An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1.
Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask the group the following:
1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want this fixed.
2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background is physics and so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently diverges.
3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for the case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this limit case and have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? I ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code.
Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time trying to contribute to scipy...
--Adam
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
it appears I wasn't running _generate_ufuncs.py beforehand
If _generate_ufuncs.py is in your repo then you aren't working with the master branch of SciPy. It was changed to _generate_pyx.py recently and is now run automatically as part of the build process. Make sure you update (or there will be a ton of merge conflicts when you submit the PR).
Is there a way of generating HTML that renders the latex equations?
Maybe try make html-scipyorg. The first time you try it will probably complain that you are missing a git submodule, but it should also give instructions on how to fix that.
Is the 2nd author of the first reference misspelled
Looks like it. On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
I figured it out and it appears I wasn't running _generate_ufuncs.py beforehand...
That said, the generated HTML still doesn't render my equations as a latex equation. That is to say, my output looks like:
*Is there a way of generating HTML that renders the latex equations?* Like it appears on the https://docs.scipy.org/ doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.special.hyp2f1.html
*Bonus question: *Is the 2nd author of the first reference misspelled, i.e., Jjie [sic]? Shouldn't the entire reference be: S. Zhang, J. Jin "Computation of Special Functions", Wiley, 1996? See <https://books.google.com/books/about/Computation_of_special_functions.html?i...> https://books.google.com/books/about/Computation_of_ special_functions.html?id=ASfvAAAAMAAJ
I can fix the first reference in my PR as well...
--Adam
On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 20:52 -0500, Joshua Wilson wrote:
I do in fact get a bunch of html in the folders build/html, but the html for hyp2f1 doesn't contain my edits
If I recall correctly, Sphinx doesn't detect changes in the `_ufuncs` extension module. Maybe try forcing a complete rebuild with `make SPHINXOPTS=-Ea html`.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Hey guys,
How do I view the html version of a functions docstring? I've added my Buhring reference to the docstring and I want to see how it renders in HTML.
I've tried both methods described in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/doc/README.txt but neither of them worked.
When I try: (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-dev/scipy$ python setup.py build_sphinx I get: (...blah...blah...) usage: setup.py [global_opts] cmd1 [cmd1_opts] [cmd2 [cmd2_opts] ...] or: setup.py --help [cmd1 cmd2 ...] or: setup.py --help-commands or: setup.py cmd --help error: invalid command 'build_sphinx'
When I try : (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-dev/scipy/doc$ make html
I do in fact get a bunch of html in the folders build/html, but the html for hyp2f1 doesn't contain my edits. I've tried building html after reinstalling my dev version of scipy, but that didn't change anything.
Thanks for any help!
--Adam
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:23 -0700, Adam wrote:
I can certainly add the formulas to the doc string if that's what people want. My only concern is that the a-b=m case involves about a page of formula's and would take a lot of space in the doc string (I've attached the pdf from my latex file of the formulas). Originally I was thinking that the docstring would just contain some reference to the pdf document, e.g., "See the pdf at location X for the method used when a-b is an integer."
But like I said, I can put them wherever they need to go; I justed wanted to make sure that future maintainers have some reference as to what the code is trying to do...
--Adam
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 08:54 -0400, josef.pktd@gmail.com wrote:
One possibility: Currently the only more extensive Latex based documentation is in the tutorial. I think it would be possible to add a technical appendix or something like that to the scipy.special tutorial, a bit similar to the distributions formulas attached to the stats tutorial.
For example Boost, last time I checked, had long documentation for the special functions, which might be too long to fit in docstrings.
I don't know how much there would be for special functions and whether it is difficult to maintain those notes. However, I think it would be good to have notes that developers have already written available for future developers and users that are interested in technical details.
Josef
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Ted Pudlik <tpudlik@gmail.com> wrote:
Concerning the actual formulas: there's a compromise between leaving them implicit and creating a separate LaTeX doc. You could add the formulas to the docstring. The LaTeX will render in the HTML version of the documentation (example). I'm not sure how the maintainers feel about this, though (this is just a suggestion from a "private citizen").
In general: using LaTeX can be a good idea, the one thing that has to be kept in mind is readability as plain text (important both for reading docstrings in IPython terminal and when working on the code in an editor). Best to add LaTeX formulas to the Notes section rather than in the first sentences. And avoid usage of things like \left[ that make the rendered html slightly prettier but the actual math much harder to read as plain text.
Here's a recent PR with discussion about various LaTeX styles: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7756. The style that got merged is about right.
Cheers, Ralf
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Okay cool; thanks for the helpful reply!
I'll look at Gosper's method and see how it compares with Buhring's method. For now I'll plan on doing a PR that implements one of these two methods. I was just worried that I might end up doing a lot of work on a PR that implements Buhring's series only to have a reviewer reject it saying "Well, you should have used such-and-such's algorithm which is must faster, much more accurate, etc."
I'll also hold off on adding a latex doc to the repo of the actual formulas used for the b-a=integer special case (unless I hear otherwise).
Thanks again!
--Adam
-----Original Message----- From: Joshua Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:35 AM To: SciPy Developers List Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1
Hey Adam,
Does this sound like a worthwhile PR?
Yes, definitely
Does the implementation sound reasonable?
It's been a while since I've thought about this, but if I recall correctly the problematic region you've found is one that comes up quite frequently--see e.g. page 14 in
http://fredrikj.net/math/hypgeom.pdf
Floating around in the ether is a method credited to Bill Gosper for handling that region which also uses a recurrence relation (maybe related to/the same as in the paper you cited)? I can never seem to find the original reference (dead link), but I've attached someone's writeup of it.
So, your implementation sounds reasonable, but if you really want to dig into it you could check out the Gosper stuff and see how they compare.
Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR?
It's implicit in the literature, so I think it's fine.
I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string
The Buhring paper. The formula is something that an informed reader could figure out after reading it.
I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?)
If I recall correctly people were opposed to adding LaTeX docs. (But maybe I recall incorrectly; if so please someone correct me.) I also have various special function write ups that might be handy for future devs... maybe in a separate repo?
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Hello guys,
I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented this error in issue 8054 on github.
I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this paper: (Buhring, An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1.
Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask the group the following:
1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want this fixed.
2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background is physics and so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently diverges.
3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for the case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this limit case and have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? I ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code.
Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time trying to contribute to scipy...
--Adam
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
Okay *that* worked! Thank you very much!
If _generate_ufuncs.py is in your repo then you aren't working with the master branch of SciPy. It was changed to _generate_pyx.py recently and is now run automatically as part of the build process. Make sure you update (or there will be a ton of merge conflicts when you submit the PR). My repo actually does have _generate_pyx.py which is what I meant; I copied _generate_ufuncs.py from the comment header of add_newdocs.py. In my PR, I'll change these comments so they refer to the new _generate_pyx.py... I'll also fix the reference to "Computation of Special Functions" in my PR unless someone objects... On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 16:46 -0500, Joshua Wilson wrote: it appears I wasn't running _generate_ufuncs.py beforehand> If _generate_ufuncs.py is in your repo then you aren't working with the master branch of SciPy. It was changed to _generate_pyx.py recently and is now run automatically as part of the build process. Make sure you update (or there will be a ton of merge conflicts when you submit the PR).>
Is there a way of generating HTML that renders the latex equations?> Maybe try make html-scipyorg. The first time you try it will probably complain that you are missing a git submodule, but it should also give instructions on how to fix that.>
Is the 2nd author of the first reference misspelled> Looks like it.
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Adam > <Former@physicist.net>> wrote:
I figured it out and it appears I wasn't running _generate_ufuncs.py beforehand...
That said, the generated HTML still doesn't render my equations as a latex equation. That is to say, my output looks like: Is there a way of generating HTML that renders the latex equations? Like it appears on the https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.special.hyp2f1.ht... Bonus question: Is the 2nd author of the first reference misspelled, i.e., Jjie [sic]? Shouldn't the entire reference be:> > S. Zhang, J. Jin "Computation of Special Functions", Wiley, 1996? See https://books.google.com/books/about/Computation_of_special_functions.html?i...
I can fix the first reference in my PR as well...
--Adam> > > > On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 20:52 -0500, Joshua Wilson wrote:
I do in fact get a bunch of html in the folders build/html, but the html for hyp2f1 doesn't contain my edits
If I recall correctly, Sphinx doesn't detect changes in the `_ufuncs` extension module. Maybe try forcing a complete rebuild with `make SPHINXOPTS=-Ea html`.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Hey guys,
How do I view the html version of a functions docstring? I've added my Buhring reference to the docstring and I want to see how it renders in HTML.
I've tried both methods described in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/doc/README.txt but neither of them worked.
When I try: (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-> > > > dev/scipy$ python setup.py build_sphinx I get: (...blah...blah...) usage: setup.py [global_opts] cmd1 [cmd1_opts] [cmd2 [cmd2_opts] ...] or: setup.py --help [cmd1 cmd2 ...] or: setup.py --help-commands or: setup.py cmd --help error: invalid command 'build_sphinx'
When I try : (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-> > > > dev/scipy/doc$ make html
I do in fact get a bunch of html in the folders build/html, but the html for hyp2f1 doesn't contain my edits. I've tried building html after reinstalling my dev version of scipy, but that didn't change anything.
Thanks for any help!
--Adam
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:23 -0700, Adam wrote:
I can certainly add the formulas to the doc string if that's what people want. My only concern is that the a-b=m case involves about a page of formula's and would take a lot of space in the doc string (I've attached the pdf from my latex file of the formulas). Originally I was thinking that the docstring would just contain some reference to the pdf document, e.g., "See the pdf at location X for the method used when a-b is an integer."
But like I said, I can put them wherever they need to go; I justed wanted to make sure that future maintainers have some reference as to what the code is trying to do...
--Adam
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 08:54 -0400, josef.pktd@gmail.com wrote:
One possibility: Currently the only more extensive Latex based documentation is in the tutorial. I think it would be possible to add a technical appendix or something like that to the scipy.special tutorial, a bit similar to the distributions formulas attached to the stats tutorial.
For example Boost, last time I checked, had long documentation for the special functions, which might be too long to fit in docstrings.
I don't know how much there would be for special functions and whether it is difficult to maintain those notes. However, I think it would be good to have notes that developers have already written available for future developers and users that are interested in technical details.
Josef
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Ted Pudlik <tpudlik@gmail.com> wrote:
Concerning the actual formulas: there's a compromise between leaving them implicit and creating a separate LaTeX doc. You could add the formulas to the docstring. The LaTeX will render in the HTML version of the documentation (example). I'm not sure how the maintainers feel about this, though (this is just a suggestion from a "private citizen").
In general: using LaTeX can be a good idea, the one thing that has to be kept in mind is readability as plain text (important both for reading docstrings in IPython terminal and when working on the code in an editor). Best to add LaTeX formulas to the Notes section rather than in the first sentences. And avoid usage of things like \left[ that make the rendered html slightly prettier but the actual math much harder to read as plain text.
Here's a recent PR with discussion about various LaTeX styles: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7756. The style that got merged is about right.
Cheers, Ralf
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Okay cool; thanks for the helpful reply!
I'll look at Gosper's method and see how it compares with Buhring's method. For now I'll plan on doing a PR that implements one of these two methods. I was just worried that I might end up doing a lot of work on a PR that implements Buhring's series only to have a reviewer reject it saying "Well, you should have used such-and-such's algorithm which is must faster, much more accurate, etc."
I'll also hold off on adding a latex doc to the repo of the actual formulas used for the b-a=integer special case (unless I hear otherwise).
Thanks again!
--Adam
-----Original Message----- From: Joshua Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:35 AM To: SciPy Developers List Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1
Hey Adam,
Does this sound like a worthwhile PR?
Yes, definitely
Does the implementation sound reasonable?
It's been a while since I've thought about this, but if I recall correctly the problematic region you've found is one that comes up quite frequently--see e.g. page 14 in
http://fredrikj.net/math/hypgeom.pdf
Floating around in the ether is a method credited to Bill Gosper for handling that region which also uses a recurrence relation (maybe related to/the same as in the paper you cited)? I can never seem to find the original reference (dead link), but I've attached someone's writeup of it.
So, your implementation sounds reasonable, but if you really want to dig into it you could check out the Gosper stuff and see how they compare.
Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR?
It's implicit in the literature, so I think it's fine.
I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string
The Buhring paper. The formula is something that an informed reader could figure out after reading it.
I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?)
If I recall correctly people were opposed to adding LaTeX docs. (But maybe I recall incorrectly; if so please someone correct me.) I also have various special function write ups that might be handy for future devs... maybe in a separate repo?
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Hello guys,
I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented this error in issue 8054 on github.
I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this paper: (Buhring, An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1.
Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask the group the following:
1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want this fixed.
2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background is physics and so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently diverges.
3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for the case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this limit case and have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? I ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code.
Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time trying to contribute to scipy...
--Adam
______________________________> > > > > _________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
______________________________> > > > _________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
______________________________> > > > _________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
______________________________> > > > _________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
______________________________> > > > _________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
______________________________> > > > _________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
______________________________> > > > _________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
______________________________> > > > _________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
______________________________> > > _________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
______________________________> > _________________
SciPy-Dev mailing list
SciPy-Dev@python.org
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list
SciPy-Dev@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev>
It might make sense to submit some of these smaller fixes as quick PRs. They will require little review and can get merged quickly, while the process for algorithm changes will likely take more time. - Josh On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Okay *that* worked! Thank you very much!
If _generate_ufuncs.py is in your repo then you aren't working with the master branch of SciPy. It was changed to _generate_pyx.py recently and is now run automatically as part of the build process. Make sure you update (or there will be a ton of merge conflicts when you submit the PR).
My repo actually does have _generate_pyx.py which is what I meant; I copied _generate_ufuncs.py from the comment header of add_newdocs.py. In my PR, I'll change these comments so they refer to the new _generate_pyx.py...
I'll also fix the reference to "Computation of Special Functions" in my PR unless someone objects...
On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 16:46 -0500, Joshua Wilson wrote:
it appears I wasn't running _generate_ufuncs.py beforehand
If _generate_ufuncs.py is in your repo then you aren't working with the master branch of SciPy. It was changed to _generate_pyx.py recently and is now run automatically as part of the build process. Make sure you update (or there will be a ton of merge conflicts when you submit the PR).
Is there a way of generating HTML that renders the latex equations?
Maybe try make html-scipyorg. The first time you try it will probably complain that you are missing a git submodule, but it should also give instructions on how to fix that.
Is the 2nd author of the first reference misspelled
Looks like it.
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
I figured it out and it appears I wasn't running _generate_ufuncs.py beforehand...
That said, the generated HTML still doesn't render my equations as a latex equation. That is to say, my output looks like:
*Is there a way of generating HTML that renders the latex equations?* Like it appears on the https://docs.scipy.org/doc /scipy/reference/generated/scipy.special.hyp2f1.html
*Bonus question: *Is the 2nd author of the first reference misspelled, i.e., Jjie [sic]? Shouldn't the entire reference be: S. Zhang, J. Jin "Computation of Special Functions", Wiley, 1996? See <https://books.google.com/books/about/Computation_of_special_functions.html?i...> https://books.google.com/books/about/Computation_of_spec ial_functions.html?id=ASfvAAAAMAAJ
I can fix the first reference in my PR as well...
--Adam
On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 20:52 -0500, Joshua Wilson wrote:
I do in fact get a bunch of html in the folders build/html, but the html for hyp2f1 doesn't contain my edits
If I recall correctly, Sphinx doesn't detect changes in the `_ufuncs` extension module. Maybe try forcing a complete rebuild with `make SPHINXOPTS=-Ea html`.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Hey guys,
How do I view the html version of a functions docstring? I've added my Buhring reference to the docstring and I want to see how it renders in HTML.
I've tried both methods described in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/doc/README.txt but neither of them worked.
When I try: (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-dev/scipy$ python setup.py build_sphinx I get: (...blah...blah...) usage: setup.py [global_opts] cmd1 [cmd1_opts] [cmd2 [cmd2_opts] ...] or: setup.py --help [cmd1 cmd2 ...] or: setup.py --help-commands or: setup.py cmd --help error: invalid command 'build_sphinx'
When I try : (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-dev/scipy/doc$ make html
I do in fact get a bunch of html in the folders build/html, but the html for hyp2f1 doesn't contain my edits. I've tried building html after reinstalling my dev version of scipy, but that didn't change anything.
Thanks for any help!
--Adam
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:23 -0700, Adam wrote:
I can certainly add the formulas to the doc string if that's what people want. My only concern is that the a-b=m case involves about a page of formula's and would take a lot of space in the doc string (I've attached the pdf from my latex file of the formulas). Originally I was thinking that the docstring would just contain some reference to the pdf document, e.g., "See the pdf at location X for the method used when a-b is an integer."
But like I said, I can put them wherever they need to go; I justed wanted to make sure that future maintainers have some reference as to what the code is trying to do...
--Adam
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 08:54 -0400, josef.pktd@gmail.com wrote:
One possibility: Currently the only more extensive Latex based documentation is in the tutorial. I think it would be possible to add a technical appendix or something like that to the scipy.special tutorial, a bit similar to the distributions formulas attached to the stats tutorial.
For example Boost, last time I checked, had long documentation for the special functions, which might be too long to fit in docstrings.
I don't know how much there would be for special functions and whether it is difficult to maintain those notes. However, I think it would be good to have notes that developers have already written available for future developers and users that are interested in technical details.
Josef
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Ted Pudlik <tpudlik@gmail.com> wrote:
Concerning the actual formulas: there's a compromise between leaving them implicit and creating a separate LaTeX doc. You could add the formulas to the docstring. The LaTeX will render in the HTML version of the documentation (example). I'm not sure how the maintainers feel about this, though (this is just a suggestion from a "private citizen").
In general: using LaTeX can be a good idea, the one thing that has to be kept in mind is readability as plain text (important both for reading docstrings in IPython terminal and when working on the code in an editor). Best to add LaTeX formulas to the Notes section rather than in the first sentences. And avoid usage of things like \left[ that make the rendered html slightly prettier but the actual math much harder to read as plain text.
Here's a recent PR with discussion about various LaTeX styles: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7756. The style that got merged is about right.
Cheers, Ralf
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Okay cool; thanks for the helpful reply!
I'll look at Gosper's method and see how it compares with Buhring's method. For now I'll plan on doing a PR that implements one of these two methods. I was just worried that I might end up doing a lot of work on a PR that implements Buhring's series only to have a reviewer reject it saying "Well, you should have used such-and-such's algorithm which is must faster, much more accurate, etc."
I'll also hold off on adding a latex doc to the repo of the actual formulas used for the b-a=integer special case (unless I hear otherwise).
Thanks again!
--Adam
-----Original Message----- From: Joshua Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:35 AM To: SciPy Developers List Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1
Hey Adam,
Does this sound like a worthwhile PR?
Yes, definitely
Does the implementation sound reasonable?
It's been a while since I've thought about this, but if I recall correctly the problematic region you've found is one that comes up quite frequently--see e.g. page 14 in
http://fredrikj.net/math/hypgeom.pdf
Floating around in the ether is a method credited to Bill Gosper for handling that region which also uses a recurrence relation (maybe related to/the same as in the paper you cited)? I can never seem to find the original reference (dead link), but I've attached someone's writeup of it.
So, your implementation sounds reasonable, but if you really want to dig into it you could check out the Gosper stuff and see how they compare.
Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR?
It's implicit in the literature, so I think it's fine.
I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string
The Buhring paper. The formula is something that an informed reader could figure out after reading it.
I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?)
If I recall correctly people were opposed to adding LaTeX docs. (But maybe I recall incorrectly; if so please someone correct me.) I also have various special function write ups that might be handy for future devs... maybe in a separate repo?
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote:
Hello guys,
I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented this error in issue 8054 on github.
I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this paper: (Buhring, An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1.
Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask the group the following:
1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want this fixed.
2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background is physics and so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently diverges.
3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for the case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this limit case and have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? I ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code.
Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time trying to contribute to scipy...
--Adam
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing listSciPy-Dev@python.orghttps://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
okay; tomorrow I’ll make a small PR that just fixes the reference type and the code comments referring to ‘_generate_ufuncs.py’. I’ll grep the ‘./special/’ folder to see if I can find any other places that refer to ‘_generate_ufuncs.py’ --Adam From: Joshua Wilson Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 5:26 PM To: SciPy Developers List Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1 It might make sense to submit some of these smaller fixes as quick PRs. They will require little review and can get merged quickly, while the process for algorithm changes will likely take more time. - Josh On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote: Okay *that* worked! Thank you very much! > If _generate_ufuncs.py is in your repo then you aren't working with the master branch of SciPy. It was changed to _generate_pyx.py recently and is now run automatically as part of the build process. Make sure you update (or there will be a ton of merge conflicts when you submit the PR). My repo actually does have _generate_pyx.py which is what I meant; I copied _generate_ufuncs.py from the comment header of add_newdocs.py. In my PR, I'll change these comments so they refer to the new _generate_pyx.py... I'll also fix the reference to "Computation of Special Functions" in my PR unless someone objects... On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 16:46 -0500, Joshua Wilson wrote: > it appears I wasn't running _generate_ufuncs.py beforehand If _generate_ufuncs.py is in your repo then you aren't working with the master branch of SciPy. It was changed to _generate_pyx.py recently and is now run automatically as part of the build process. Make sure you update (or there will be a ton of merge conflicts when you submit the PR). > Is there a way of generating HTML that renders the latex equations? Maybe try make html-scipyorg. The first time you try it will probably complain that you are missing a git submodule, but it should also give instructions on how to fix that. > Is the 2nd author of the first reference misspelled Looks like it. On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote: I figured it out and it appears I wasn't running _generate_ufuncs.py beforehand... That said, the generated HTML still doesn't render my equations as a latex equation. That is to say, my output looks like: Is there a way of generating HTML that renders the latex equations? Like it appears on the https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.special.hyp2f1.ht... Bonus question: Is the 2nd author of the first reference misspelled, i.e., Jjie [sic]? Shouldn't the entire reference be: S. Zhang, J. Jin "Computation of Special Functions", Wiley, 1996? See https://books.google.com/books/about/Computation_of_special_functions.html?i... I can fix the first reference in my PR as well... --Adam On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 20:52 -0500, Joshua Wilson wrote: I do in fact get a bunch of html in the folders build/html, but the html for hyp2f1 doesn't contain my edits If I recall correctly, Sphinx doesn't detect changes in the `_ufuncs` extension module. Maybe try forcing a complete rebuild with `make SPHINXOPTS=-Ea html`. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote: Hey guys, How do I view the html version of a functions docstring? I've added my Buhring reference to the docstring and I want to see how it renders in HTML. I've tried both methods described in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/doc/README.txt but neither of them worked. When I try: (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-dev/scipy$ python setup.py build_sphinx I get: (...blah...blah...) usage: setup.py [global_opts] cmd1 [cmd1_opts] [cmd2 [cmd2_opts] ...] or: setup.py --help [cmd1 cmd2 ...] or: setup.py --help-commands or: setup.py cmd --help error: invalid command 'build_sphinx' When I try : (scipy-dev) adam@adam-P7xxDM-G:~/scipy-dev/scipy/doc$ make html I do in fact get a bunch of html in the folders build/html, but the html for hyp2f1 doesn't contain my edits. I've tried building html after reinstalling my dev version of scipy, but that didn't change anything. Thanks for any help! --Adam On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:23 -0700, Adam wrote: I can certainly add the formulas to the doc string if that's what people want. My only concern is that the a-b=m case involves about a page of formula's and would take a lot of space in the doc string (I've attached the pdf from my latex file of the formulas). Originally I was thinking that the docstring would just contain some reference to the pdf document, e.g., "See the pdf at location X for the method used when a-b is an integer." But like I said, I can put them wherever they need to go; I justed wanted to make sure that future maintainers have some reference as to what the code is trying to do... --Adam On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 08:54 -0400, josef.pktd@gmail.com wrote: One possibility: Currently the only more extensive Latex based documentation is in the tutorial. I think it would be possible to add a technical appendix or something like that to the scipy.special tutorial, a bit similar to the distributions formulas attached to the stats tutorial. For example Boost, last time I checked, had long documentation for the special functions, which might be too long to fit in docstrings. I don't know how much there would be for special functions and whether it is difficult to maintain those notes. However, I think it would be good to have notes that developers have already written available for future developers and users that are interested in technical details. Josef On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote: On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Ted Pudlik <tpudlik@gmail.com> wrote: Concerning the actual formulas: there's a compromise between leaving them implicit and creating a separate LaTeX doc. You could add the formulas to the docstring. The LaTeX will render in the HTML version of the documentation (example). I'm not sure how the maintainers feel about this, though (this is just a suggestion from a "private citizen"). In general: using LaTeX can be a good idea, the one thing that has to be kept in mind is readability as plain text (important both for reading docstrings in IPython terminal and when working on the code in an editor). Best to add LaTeX formulas to the Notes section rather than in the first sentences. And avoid usage of things like \left[ that make the rendered html slightly prettier but the actual math much harder to read as plain text. Here's a recent PR with discussion about various LaTeX styles: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7756. The style that got merged is about right. Cheers, Ralf On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote: Okay cool; thanks for the helpful reply! I'll look at Gosper's method and see how it compares with Buhring's method. For now I'll plan on doing a PR that implements one of these two methods. I was just worried that I might end up doing a lot of work on a PR that implements Buhring's series only to have a reviewer reject it saying "Well, you should have used such-and-such's algorithm which is must faster, much more accurate, etc." I'll also hold off on adding a latex doc to the repo of the actual formulas used for the b-a=integer special case (unless I hear otherwise). Thanks again! --Adam -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Wilson Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:35 AM To: SciPy Developers List Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] Fixing a bug with scipy's hypergeometric function hyp2f1 Hey Adam, Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? Yes, definitely Does the implementation sound reasonable? It's been a while since I've thought about this, but if I recall correctly the problematic region you've found is one that comes up quite frequently--see e.g. page 14 in http://fredrikj.net/math/hypgeom.pdf Floating around in the ether is a method credited to Bill Gosper for handling that region which also uses a recurrence relation (maybe related to/the same as in the paper you cited)? I can never seem to find the original reference (dead link), but I've attached someone's writeup of it. So, your implementation sounds reasonable, but if you really want to dig into it you could check out the Gosper stuff and see how they compare. Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? It's implicit in the literature, so I think it's fine. I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string The Buhring paper. The formula is something that an informed reader could figure out after reading it. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) If I recall correctly people were opposed to adding LaTeX docs. (But maybe I recall incorrectly; if so please someone correct me.) I also have various special function write ups that might be handy for future devs... maybe in a separate repo? On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Adam <Former@physicist.net> wrote: Hello guys, I've found a small region in the complex plane where scipy's implementation of the hypergeometric function hyp2f1 fails. I've documented this error in issue 8054 on github. I am willing to submit a PR that fixes this issue. My PR would basically implement the analytic continuation formula given in this paper: (Buhring, An Analytic Continuation of the Hypergeometric Series). I've already implemented this series in some prototype code written in Fortran and it agrees well with the values returned by mpmath's implementation of hyp2f1. Before I attempt a PR, I just wanted to touch base and ask the group the following: 1) Does this sound like a worthwhile PR? The failure region is somewhat small and I don't know with what urgency people would want this fixed. 2) Does the implementation sound reasonable? My background is physics and so I haven't done a complete literature search looking for the *fastest* algorithm. All I can say that the Buhring's formula works and my implementation only seems to be about %50 slower than the current hyp2f1 (at points in the complex plane where both methods converge). I would only apply Buhring's series in the region where hyp2f1 currently diverges. 3) Can the PR implement formulas/methods that don't appear in the literature? Buhring's paper *only* gives the analytic continuation for the case where the difference between the a/b parameters is NOT an integer. When a-b=m, the limit case of his series can be derived using a method described in "The Special Functions and Their Approximations" by Y. Luke (as Buhling mentions in his paper). I've derived the formula for this limit case and have an implementation of it that produces values in agreement with mpmath. Is it going to be a problem if I implement this limit case in the PR? I ask because I don't what reference I would place hyp2f1's doc string. I would be wiling to maybe add a latex doc to the PR (placed somewhere in the doc folder?) that contains the formula so that future scipy devs have something to reference when reviewing hyp2f1's source code. Anyways, let me know if my idea for a PR sounds like a good idea! I apologize for the longish email, but this is my first time trying to contribute to scipy... --Adam _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
participants (5)
-
Adam -
josef.pktd＠gmail.com -
Joshua Wilson -
Ralf Gommers -
Ted Pudlik