You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
What bits of sage do I need to patch to teach the simplifier about this identity? Is this something I can do as a plain-old user? Also, what bits of the documentation cover this aspect of symbolic symplification, from both user and contributor perspectives?
The simplify*/expand* member functions are covered in http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/calculus/sage/symbolic/expression.html. Most of them use Maxima. If you have a function that does this rewrite it should be added in this module, and probably also to one of the simplify*/expand* functions. As to the details, best would be a function named expand_xyz because you expand gamma(x), or rewrite_xyz. The same documentation contains specifics on pattern matching and overall expression manipulation, which is needed here.
As to the second identity, we still haven't the gamma with three parameters.
To be clear, there's just one identity here, with two notations.
I expect if/when we gain a three-argument gamma, the simplification logic won't need to be modified in order to Just Work.
This work depends on #16697, but I'd like to start it now.
There is a quite simple identity for the incomplete gamma functions:
In the mathematica three-argument-gamma notation, this is a bit more clearly true:
What bits of sage do I need to patch to teach the simplifier about this identity? Is this something I can do as a plain-old user? Also, what bits of the documentation cover this aspect of symbolic symplification, from both user and contributor perspectives?
Depends on #16697
CC: @paulmasson
Component: symbolics
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18956
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: