Develop Reference

3D graphing the complex values of a function in Python

This is the real function I am looking to represent in 3D:
y = f(x) = x^2 + 1
The complex function would be as follows:
w = f(z) = z^2 + 1
Where z = x + iy and w = u + iv. These are four dimentions (x, y, u, v), but one can use u for 3D graphing.
We get:
f(x + iy) = x^2 + 2xyi - y^2 + 1
So:
u = x^2 - y^2 + 1
and v = 2xy
This u is what is being used in the code below.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
x = np.linspace(-100, 101, 150)
y = np.linspace(-100, 101, 150)
X, Y = np.meshgrid(x,y)
U = (X**2) - (Y**2) + 1
fig = plt.figure(dpi = 300)
ax = plt.axes(projection='3d')
ax.plot_surface(X, Y, Z)
plt.show()
The following images are the side-view of the 3D function and the 2D plot for reference. I do not think they are alike.
Likewise, here is the comparison between the 3 side-view and the 2D plot of w = z^3 + 1. They seem to differ as well.
I have not been able to find too many resources regarding plotting in 3D using complex numbers. Because of this and the possible discrepancies mentioned before, I think the code must be flawed, but I can't figure out why. I would be grateful if you could correct me or advise me on any changes.
The inspiration came from Welch Labs' 'Imaginary Numbers are Real' YouTube series where he shows a jaw-dropping representation of the complex values of the function I have been tinkering with.
I was just wondering if anybody could point out any flaws in my reasoning or the execution of my idea since this code would be helpful in explaining the importance of complex numbers to HS students.
Thank you very much for your time.

The f(z) = z^2 + 1 projection (that is, side-view) looks OK to me. You can use this technique to add the projections; this code:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from matplotlib import cm
def f(z):
return z**2 + 1
def freal(x, y):
return x**2 - y**2 + 1
x = np.linspace(-100, 101, 150)
y = np.linspace(-100, 101, 150)
yproj = 0 # value of y for which to project xu axes
xproj = 0 # value of x to project onto yu axes
X, Y = np.meshgrid(x,y)
Z = X + 1j * Y
W = f(Z)
U = W.real
fig = plt.figure()
ax = plt.axes(projection='3d')
## surface
ax.plot_surface(X, Y, U, alpha=0.7)
# xu projection
xuproj = freal(x, yproj)
ax.plot(x, xuproj, zs=101, zdir='y', color='red', lw=5)
ax.plot(x, xuproj, zs=yproj, zdir='y', color='red', lw=5)
# yu projection
yuproj = freal(xproj, y)
ax.plot(y, yuproj, zs=101, zdir='x', color='green', lw=5)
ax.plot(y, yuproj, zs=xproj, zdir='x', color='green', lw=5)
# partially reproduce https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T647CGsuOVU&t=107s
x = np.linspace(-3, 3, 150)
y = np.linspace(0, 3, 150)
X, Y = np.meshgrid(x,y)
U = f(X + 1j*Y).real
fig = plt.figure()
ax = plt.axes(projection='3d')
## surface
ax.plot_surface(X, Y, U, cmap=cm.jet)
ax.set_box_aspect( (np.diff(ax.get_xlim())[0],
np.diff(ax.get_ylim())[0],
np.diff(ax.get_zlim())[0]))
#ax.set_aspect('equal')
plt.show()
gives this result:
and
The axis ticks don't look very good: you can investigate plt.xticks or ax.set_xticks (and yticks, zticks) to fix this.
There is a way to visualize complex functions using colour as a fourth dimension; see complex-analysis.com for examples.

Surface where height is a function of two functions, and a sum over the third

Suppose I have a function such as:
Now, I want to make a surface plot of it (matplotlib plot_surface). I've constructed the three arrays using np.arange(stop,end,increment).
And here, I'm stuck. I don't want to use a for-loop, since I think I should be able to solve this with np.sum.
However, I don't know how to construct the function. Ideally, it can be constructed as f(x,y,k) and I'd use f(x,y) = np.sum(f(x,y,k), k).
I am failing to think of the solution.

I'd rather not take a wild guess at what you want to do, but here's an illustrative example:
import numpy as np
x = np.random.rand(100)
y = np.random.rand(100)
k = np.arange(1, 11)
# define f_k = (x + y)^k
fk = lambda xx, yy, kk: (xx + yy)**kk
Then,
X, Y, K = np.meshgrid(x, y, k)
# sum over k after evaluating f_k
f = fk(X, Y, K).sum(axis=-1)
f.shape
# (100, 100)
Finally,
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(111, projection='3d')
ax.plot_surface(X[...,0], Y[...,0], f)
plt.show()
Alternatively, you could do
X, Y = np.meshgrid(x, y)
ax.plot_surface(X, Y, f)
plt.show()

Plotting a function of three variables in python

I would like to plot the contour lines for this function, however I cannot find any useful way to do it.
The potential function is :
V(x,y,z) = cos(10x) + cos(10y) + cos(10z) + 2*(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)
I unsuccessfully attempted something like:
import numpy
import matplotlib.pyplot.contour
def V(x,y,z):
return numpy.cos(10*x) + numpy.cos(10*y) + numpy.cos(10*z) + 2*(x**2 + y**2 + z**2)
X, Y, Z = numpy.mgrid[-1:1:100j, -1:1:100j, -1:1:100j]
But then, I don't know how to do the next step to plot it?
matplotlib.pyplot.contour(X,Y,Z,V)

An error will arise when you try to pass contour three-dimensional arrays, as it expects two-dimensional arrays.
With this in mind, try:
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import axes3d
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from matplotlib import cm
import numpy as np
def V(x,y,z):
return np.cos(10*x) + np.cos(10*y) + np.cos(10*z) + 2*(x**2 + y**2 + z**2)
X,Y = np.mgrid[-1:1:100j, -1:1:100j]
Z_vals = [ -0.5, 0, 0.9 ]
num_subplots = len( Z_vals)
fig = plt.figure(figsize=(10, 4))
for i,z in enumerate( Z_vals):
ax = fig.add_subplot(1 , num_subplots , i+1, projection='3d')
ax.contour(X, Y, V(X,Y,z), cmap=cm.gnuplot)
ax.set_title('z = %.2f'%z, fontsize=30)
fig.savefig('contours.png', facecolor='grey', edgecolor='none')
Instead, use ax.contourf(...) to show the surfaces, which looks nicer in my opinion.
There is no direct way to visualize a function of 3 variables, as it is an object (surface) which lives in 4 dimensions. One must play with slices of the function to see what's going on. By a slice, I mean a projection of the function onto a lower dimensional space. A slice is achieved by setting one or more of the function variables as a constant.

I'm not sure this is what the OP needed, but I think a possible solution might be this one:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def compute_torus(precision, c, a):
U = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, precision)
V = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, precision)
U, V = np.meshgrid(U, V)
X = (c+a*np.cos(V))*np.cos(U)
Y = (c+a*np.cos(V))*np.sin(U)
Z = a*np.sin(V)
return X, Y, Z
x, y, z = compute_torus(100, 2, 1)
fig = plt.figure()
color_dimension = z # Here goes the potential
minn, maxx = color_dimension.min(), color_dimension.max()
norm = matplotlib.colors.Normalize(minn, maxx)
m = plt.cm.ScalarMappable(norm=norm, cmap='jet')
m.set_array([])
fcolors = m.to_rgba(color_dimension)
# plot
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.gca(projection='3d')
ax.plot_surface(x,y,z, rstride=1, cstride=1, facecolors=fcolors, vmin=minn, vmax=maxx, shade=False)
Setting color_dimension to the values of the potential function, using this code can be plotted over a torus. In general, it can be plotted over any 3D shape of (x,y,z), but of course if the 3D space is fully filled with points everywhere, it's unlikely the image will be clear.

How do you create a 3D surface plot with missing values matplotlib?

I am trying to create a 3D surface energy diagram where an x,y position on a grid contains an associated z level. The issue is that the grid is not uniform (ie, there is not a z component for every x,y position). Is there a way to refrain from plotting those values by calling them NaN in the corresponding position in the array?
Here is what I have tried so far:
import numpy as np
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
import pylab
from matplotlib import cm
#Z levels
energ = np.array([0,3.5,1,-0.3,-1.5,-2,-3.4,-4.8])
#function for getting x,y associated z values?
def fun(x,y,array):
return array[x]
#arrays for grid
x = np.arange(0,7,0.5)
y = np.arange(0,7,0.5)
#create grid
X, Y = np.meshgrid(x,y)
zs = np.array([fun(x,y,energ) for x in zip(np.ravel(X))])
Z = zs.reshape(X.shape)
plt3d = plt.figure().gca(projection='3d')
#gradients now with respect to x and y, but ideally with respect to z only
Gx, Gz = np.gradient(X * Y)
G = (Gx ** 2 + Gz ** 2) ** .5 # gradient magnitude
N = G / G.max() # normalize 0..1
plt3d.plot_surface(X, Y, Z, rstride=1, cstride=1,
facecolors=cm.jet(N), edgecolor='k', linewidth=0, antialiased=False, shade=False)
plt.show()
I cannot post image here of this plot but if you run the code you will see it
But I would like to not plot certain x,y pairs, so the figure should triangle downward to the minimum. Can this be accomplished by using nan values? Also would like spacing between each level, to be connected by lines.
n = np.NAN
#energ represents the z levels, so the overall figure should look like a triangle.
energ = np.array([[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n],[n,2.6,n,2.97,n,2.6,n,2.97,n,2.6,n,3.58,n],[n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n],[n,n,1.09,n,1.23,n,1.09,n,1.23,n,1.7,n,n],[n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n],[n,n,n,-0.65,n,-0.28,n,-0.65,n,0.33,n,n,n],[n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n],[n,n,n,n,-2.16,n,-2.02,n,-1.55,n,n,n,n],[n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n],[n,n,n,n,n,-3.9,n,-2.92,n,n,n,n,n,],[n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n],[n,n,n,n,n,n,-4.8,n,n,n,n,n,n,]])
plt3d = plt.figure().gca(projection='3d')
Gx, Gz = np.gradient(X * energ) # gradients with respect to x and z
G = (Gx ** 2 + Gz ** 2) ** .5 # gradient magnitude
N = G / G.max() # normalize 0..1
x = np.arange(0,13,1)
y = np.arange(0,13,1)
X, Y = np.meshgrid(x,y)
#but the shapes don't seem to match up
plt3d.plot_surface(X, Y, energ, rstride=1, cstride=1,
facecolors=cm.jet(N), edgecolor='k',
linewidth=0, antialiased=False, shade=False
)
Using masked arrays generates the following error: local Python[7155] : void CGPathCloseSubpath(CGMutablePathRef): no current point.
n = np.NAN
energ = np.array([[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n],[n,2.6,n,2.97,n,2.6,n,2.97,n,2.6,n,3.58,n],[n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n],[n,n,1.09,n,1.23,n,1.09,n,1.23,n,1.7,n,n],[n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n],[n,n,n,-0.65,n,-0.28,n,-0.65,n,0.33,n,n,n],[n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n],[n,n,n,n,-2.16,n,-2.02,n,-1.55,n,n,n,n],[n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n],[n,n,n,n,n,-3.9,n,-2.92,n,n,n,n,n,],[n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n,n],[n,n,n,n,n,n,-4.8,n,n,n,n,n,n,]])
x = np.arange(0,13,1)
y = np.arange(0,13,1)
X, Y = np.meshgrid(x,y)
#create masked arrays
mX = ma.masked_array(X, mask=[[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1]])
mY = ma.masked_array(Y, mask=[[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1]])
m_energ = ma.masked_array(energ, mask=[[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],[1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1]])
plt3d = plt.figure().gca(projection='3d')
plt3d.plot_surface(mX, mY, m_energ, rstride=1, cstride=1, edgecolor='k', linewidth=0, antialiased=False, shade=False)
plt.show()

I was playing around with the code from this forum post, and I was able to make the graph have missing values. You can try the code yourself! I got it to work using float("nan") for the missing values.
import plotly.graph_objects as go
import numpy as np
x = np.arange(0.1,1.1,0.1)
y = np.linspace(-np.pi,np.pi,10)
#print(x)
#print(y)
X,Y = np.meshgrid(x,y)
#print(X)
#print(Y)
result = []
for i,j in zip(X,Y):
result.append(np.log(i)+np.sin(j))
result[0][0] = float("nan")
upper_bound = np.array(result)+1
lower_bound = np.array(result)-1
fig = go.Figure(data=[
go.Surface(z=result),
go.Surface(z=upper_bound, showscale=False, opacity=0.3,colorscale='purp'),
go.Surface(z=lower_bound, showscale=False, opacity=0.3,colorscale='purp')])
fig.show()

Plotting implicit equations in 3d

I'd like to plot implicit equation F(x,y,z) = 0 in 3D. Is it possible in Matplotlib?

You can trick matplotlib into plotting implicit equations in 3D. Just make a one-level contour plot of the equation for each z value within the desired limits. You can repeat the process along the y and z axes as well for a more solid-looking shape.
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import axes3d
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
def plot_implicit(fn, bbox=(-2.5,2.5)):
''' create a plot of an implicit function
fn ...implicit function (plot where fn==0)
bbox ..the x,y,and z limits of plotted interval'''
xmin, xmax, ymin, ymax, zmin, zmax = bbox*3
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(111, projection='3d')
A = np.linspace(xmin, xmax, 100) # resolution of the contour
B = np.linspace(xmin, xmax, 15) # number of slices
A1,A2 = np.meshgrid(A,A) # grid on which the contour is plotted
for z in B: # plot contours in the XY plane
X,Y = A1,A2
Z = fn(X,Y,z)
cset = ax.contour(X, Y, Z+z, [z], zdir='z')
# [z] defines the only level to plot for this contour for this value of z
for y in B: # plot contours in the XZ plane
X,Z = A1,A2
Y = fn(X,y,Z)
cset = ax.contour(X, Y+y, Z, [y], zdir='y')
for x in B: # plot contours in the YZ plane
Y,Z = A1,A2
X = fn(x,Y,Z)
cset = ax.contour(X+x, Y, Z, [x], zdir='x')
# must set plot limits because the contour will likely extend
# way beyond the displayed level. Otherwise matplotlib extends the plot limits
# to encompass all values in the contour.
ax.set_zlim3d(zmin,zmax)
ax.set_xlim3d(xmin,xmax)
ax.set_ylim3d(ymin,ymax)
plt.show()
Here's the plot of the Goursat Tangle:
def goursat_tangle(x,y,z):
a,b,c = 0.0,-5.0,11.8
return x**4+y**4+z**4+a*(x**2+y**2+z**2)**2+b*(x**2+y**2+z**2)+c
plot_implicit(goursat_tangle)
You can make it easier to visualize by adding depth cues with creative colormapping:
Here's how the OP's plot looks:
def hyp_part1(x,y,z):
return -(x**2) - (y**2) + (z**2) - 1
plot_implicit(hyp_part1, bbox=(-100.,100.))
Bonus: You can use python to functionally combine these implicit functions:
def sphere(x,y,z):
return x**2 + y**2 + z**2 - 2.0**2
def translate(fn,x,y,z):
return lambda a,b,c: fn(x-a,y-b,z-c)
def union(*fns):
return lambda x,y,z: np.min(
[fn(x,y,z) for fn in fns], 0)
def intersect(*fns):
return lambda x,y,z: np.max(
[fn(x,y,z) for fn in fns], 0)
def subtract(fn1, fn2):
return intersect(fn1, lambda *args:-fn2(*args))
plot_implicit(union(sphere,translate(sphere, 1.,1.,1.)), (-2.,3.))

Update: I finally have found an easy way to render 3D implicit surface with matplotlib and scikit-image, see my other answer. I left this one for whom is interested in plotting parametric 3D surfaces.
Motivation
Late answer, I just needed to do the same and I found another way to do it at some extent. So I am sharing this another perspective.
This post does not answer: (1) How to plot any implicit function F(x,y,z)=0? But does answer: (2) How to plot parametric surfaces (not all implicit functions, but some of them) using mesh with matplotlib?
#Paul's method has the advantage to be non parametric, therefore we can plot almost anything we want using contour method on each axe, it fully addresses (1). But matplotlib cannot easily build a mesh from this method, so we cannot directly get a surface from it, instead we get plane curves in all directions. This is what motivated my answer, I wanted to address (2).
Rendering mesh
If we are able to parametrize (this may be hard or impossible), with at most 2 parameters, the surface we want to plot then we can plot it with matplotlib.plot_trisurf method.
That is, from an implicit equation F(x,y,z)=0, if we are able to get a parametric system S={x=f(u,v), y=g(u,v), z=h(u,v)} then we can plot it easily with matplotlib without having to resort to contour.
Then, rendering such a 3D surface boils down to:
# Render:
ax = plt.axes(projection='3d')
ax.plot_trisurf(x, y, z, triangles=tri.triangles, cmap='jet', antialiased=True)
Where (x, y, z) are vectors (not meshgrid, see ravel) functionally computed from parameters (u, v) and triangles parameter is a Triangulation derived from (u,v) parameters to shoulder the mesh construction.
Imports
Required imports are:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits import mplot3d
from matplotlib.tri import Triangulation
Some surfaces
Lets parametrize some surfaces...
Sphere
# Parameters:
theta = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, 20)
phi = np.linspace(0, np.pi, 20)
theta, phi = np.meshgrid(theta, phi)
rho = 1
# Parametrization:
x = np.ravel(rho*np.cos(theta)*np.sin(phi))
y = np.ravel(rho*np.sin(theta)*np.sin(phi))
z = np.ravel(rho*np.cos(phi))
# Triangulation:
tri = Triangulation(np.ravel(theta), np.ravel(phi))
Cone
theta = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, 20)
rho = np.linspace(-2, 2, 20)
theta, rho = np.meshgrid(theta, rho)
x = np.ravel(rho*np.cos(theta))
y = np.ravel(rho*np.sin(theta))
z = np.ravel(rho)
tri = Triangulation(np.ravel(theta), np.ravel(rho))
Torus
a, c = 1, 4
u = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, 20)
v = u.copy()
u, v = np.meshgrid(u, v)
x = np.ravel((c + a*np.cos(v))*np.cos(u))
y = np.ravel((c + a*np.cos(v))*np.sin(u))
z = np.ravel(a*np.sin(v))
tri = Triangulation(np.ravel(u), np.ravel(v))
Möbius Strip
u = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, 20)
v = np.linspace(-1, 1, 20)
u, v = np.meshgrid(u, v)
x = np.ravel((2 + (v/2)*np.cos(u/2))*np.cos(u))
y = np.ravel((2 + (v/2)*np.cos(u/2))*np.sin(u))
z = np.ravel(v/2*np.sin(u/2))
tri = Triangulation(np.ravel(u), np.ravel(v))
Limitation
Most of the time, Triangulation is required in order to coordinate mesh construction of plot_trisurf method, and this object only accepts two parameters, so we are limited to 2D parametric surfaces. It is unlikely we could represent the Goursat Tangle with this method.

Matplotlib expects a series of points; it will do the plotting if you can figure out how to render your equation.
Referring to Is it possible to plot implicit equations using Matplotlib? Mike Graham's answer suggests using scipy.optimize to numerically explore the implicit function.
There is an interesting gallery at http://xrt.wikidot.com/gallery:implicit showing a variety of raytraced implicit functions - if your equation matches one of these, it might give you a better idea what you are looking at.
Failing that, if you care to share the actual equation, maybe someone can suggest an easier approach.

As far as I know, it is not possible. You have to solve this equation numerically by yourself. Using scipy.optimize is a good idea. The simplest case is that you know the range of the surface that you want to plot, and just make a regular grid in x and y, and try to solve equation F(xi,yi,z)=0 for z, giving a starting point of z. Following is a very dirty code that might help you
from scipy import *
from scipy import optimize
xrange = (0,1)
yrange = (0,1)
density = 100
startz = 1
def F(x,y,z):
return x**2+y**2+z**2-10
x = linspace(xrange[0],xrange[1],density)
y = linspace(yrange[0],yrange[1],density)
points = []
for xi in x:
for yi in y:
g = lambda z:F(xi,yi,z)
res = optimize.fsolve(g, startz, full_output=1)
if res[2] == 1:
zi = res[0]
points.append([xi,yi,zi])
points = array(points)

Actually there is an easy way to plot implicit 3D surface with the scikit-image package. The key is the marching_cubes method.
import numpy as np
from skimage import measure
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import axes3d
Then we compute the function over a 3D meshgrid, in this example we use the goursat_tangle method #Paul defined in its answer:
xl = np.linspace(-3, 3, 50)
X, Y, Z = np.meshgrid(xl, xl, xl)
F = goursat_tangle(X, Y, Z)
The magic is happening here with marching_cubes:
verts, faces, normals, values = measure.marching_cubes(F, 0, spacing=[np.diff(xl)[0]]*3)
verts -= 3
We just need to correct vertices coordinates as they are expressed in Voxel coordinates (hence scaling using spacing switch and the subsequent origin shift).
Finally it is just about rendering the iso-surface using tri_surface:
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(111, projection='3d')
ax.plot_trisurf(verts[:, 0], verts[:, 1], faces, verts[:, 2], cmap='jet', lw=0)
Which returns:

Have you looked at mplot3d on matplotlib?

Finally, I did it (I updated my matplotlib to 1.0.1).
Here is code:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
def hyp_part1(x,y,z):
return -(x**2) - (y**2) + (z**2) - 1
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(111, projection='3d')
x_range = np.arange(-100,100,10)
y_range = np.arange(-100,100,10)
X,Y = np.meshgrid(x_range,y_range)
A = np.linspace(-100, 100, 15)
A1,A2 = np.meshgrid(A,A)
for z in A:
X,Y = A1, A2
Z = hyp_part1(X,Y,z)
ax.contour(X, Y, Z+z, [z], zdir='z')
for y in A:
X,Z= A1, A2
Y = hyp_part1(X,y,Z)
ax.contour(X, Y+y, Z, [y], zdir='y')
for x in A:
Y,Z = A1, A2
X = hyp_part1(x,Y,Z)
ax.contour(X+x, Y, Z, [x], zdir='x')
ax.set_zlim3d(-100,100)
ax.set_xlim3d(-100,100)
ax.set_ylim3d(-100,100)
Here is result:
Thank You, Paul!

MathGL (GPL plotting library) can plot it easily. Just create a data mesh with function values f[i,j,k] and use Surf3() function to make isosurface at value f[i,j,k]=0. See this sample.