[SciPy-User] [scipy] GSoC 2011

[Ralf Gommers]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Charles R Harris
<charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Hector <hector1618 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> <ralf.gommers at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Hector <hector1618 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hello everyone,
>>> >
>>> > List of organizations participating in GSoC 2011 has been out for 3
>>> > days and
>>> > as everyone expected, PSF is one of it.
>>> > I was waiting for SciPy to pop up under PSF umbrella, it nothing has
>>> > been
>>> > updated there since then.
>>> > Is SciPy planning to participate in GSoC this year?
>>>
>>> I certainly hope so. Jarrod knows what is (or isn't) going on, hope he
>>> lets us know soon.
>>>
>>
>> I was really waiting for the reply of this mail or some update on python
>> site for GSoC 2011.
>>
>>>
>>> Did you have something in mind to work on? If so, it can't hurt to
>>> share your idea already.
>>>
>>
>> Being a mathematics students, I did courses on some of the advanced topics
>> and wrote code for the well known algorithms in that field. The topics ( in
>> the descending order of number of codes written ) are -
>> 1) Numerical Analysis
>> 2) Operational Research
>> 3) Abstract Algebra
>> 4) Graph theory ( Cliques)
>>
>> Unfortunately I was not aware of Python and FOSS at that time and wrote
>> all of the programs in MatLab (except Cliques). I want to contribute these
>> code and enhance the tools SciPy contains. And GSoC 2011 will give me a
>> structured platform to do that. I would be very happy to work on these if
>> someone is will to mentor me.
>>
>> My works can be seen at -
>> https://github.com/hector1618

I've browsed through some of your code on github, and most of the
Numerical Analysis methods you implemented are already present in
Scipy, probably in a more complete form. So you'd have to be a little
more precise as to what you would want to do.

Cheers,
Ralf


> Numbers 3) and 4) might fit better with SAGE.