Timeline for partial numerical evaluation
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 2018 at 15:26 | comment | added | Carl Woll | @Jansen Since I don't replace x->grid until the very end, I need the nWrappper to know what parts to evaluate. You could probably get your approach to work using x->grid at the beginning, by defining CirclePlus without Flat and Orderless. | |
| Nov 2, 2018 at 9:05 | comment | added | Jansen | Thanks, I've given you the bounty. But could you explain why the wrappers are needed? Wouldn't defining CirclePlus without Flat and Orderless, as you do as an illustration, work just as well and be simpler? | |
| Nov 2, 2018 at 9:01 | history | bounty awarded | Jansen | ||
| Nov 1, 2018 at 19:39 | comment | added | Carl Woll | @Jansen Fixed your small issue. | |
| Nov 1, 2018 at 19:38 | history | edited | Carl Woll | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Updated to process expressions with any Plus/Times objects |
| Nov 1, 2018 at 11:56 | comment | added | Jansen | Sorry I missed your update until now. It's a lot more involved than I hoped but it seems the best answer so far. One small issue though: it doesn't work on trivial expressions, in particular just x or some power of x (or when this is an element of a list of expressions). | |
| Oct 30, 2018 at 4:22 | history | edited | Carl Woll | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Add new answer |
| Oct 26, 2018 at 9:12 | comment | added | Jansen | Thanks, it's very fast now, but it still leaves computations undone. It's also becoming rather hard to read. Please see the update at the end of the question, I've also set a bounty for a more perfect answer. | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 16:16 | comment | added | Carl Woll | @Jansen Should be faster now. | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 16:15 | history | edited | Carl Woll | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Improve speed |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 12:28 | comment | added | Jansen | Thanks, but now it is very slow. Even on a piece of the linked expression it doesn't manage. It might be for the same reason as @xzcd's answer, because if I remove your rule1 it becomes very fast (but of course incomplete). | |
| Oct 24, 2018 at 17:03 | comment | added | Carl Woll | @Jansen See update. | |
| Oct 24, 2018 at 17:02 | history | edited | Carl Woll | CC BY-SA 4.0 | remove / |
| Oct 24, 2018 at 9:56 | comment | added | Jansen | Thanks, that is very fast, but as you say it leaves a lot of computations undone. On the bigger example I linked to it takes only about 0.01 seconds but the result is still full of multiplications and additions of numerical lists and factors. How would you modify it to resolve these too? | |
| Oct 23, 2018 at 17:47 | comment | added | xzczd♦ | Wow, didn't know NumericQ[x] = True; NumericQ[1 + x] gives True! | |
| Oct 23, 2018 at 17:37 | history | edited | Carl Woll | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 125 characters in body |
| Oct 23, 2018 at 17:31 | history | answered | Carl Woll | CC BY-SA 4.0 |