I found that the solve command doesn't work properly with some systems of equations containing radicals. For xample: solve({b = RootOf(_Z^3+c^2+1),c = RootOf(_Z^2+_Z+1), b = RootOf(_Z^3-RootOf(_Z^2+_Z+1))}); doesn't return any results and no "_SolutionsMayBeLost" warning. But using solve(convert({b = RootOf(_Z^3+c^2+1),c = RootOf(_Z^2+_Z+1), b = RootOf(_Z^3-RootOf(_Z^2+_Z+1))},radical)); solves the system. What can be done about it to avoid such situations?

I thought I’d exercise my left brain a little with this post and write on something a bit more technical. Actually, this was triggered by a chat I had over dinner last night with our 3D graphics development manager and a client. As you may have guessed math is intimately related to computer graphics of all sorts. My PhD thesis so many years ago was on the topic of creating funny surfaces that smoothly join two complex surfaces with a relatively small number of shape control parameters: such surfaces are called blend surfaces. This required the development of a bunch of algorithms that related either implicitly defined surfaces (i.e. f(x,y,z) = 0) or parametrically defined surfaces (i.e. each point is defined by the triplet (x(t), y(t), z(t)) ). That was twenty years ago and I always thought that any problem that I was wrestling with would have been resolved twice over by now. My ego was pleasantly surprised that indeed such problems are still the stuff of heated debates and vigorous research.

This function

f(x) = { 0,           x = 0
          { 1 - x,      0 < x < = 1

is not continuous on [0, 1].

So I wrote

f := x -> piecewise (x = 0,0,x > 0,1-x);
plot(f,0..1);

But Maple doesn't show the lack of continuity. (discont=true doesn't do anything here). Can I improve the plot?
 

Alla

Titlefont affects other text elements in an animation. Here is an example.

First, without an animation (works OK, ignoring such things as the plot being higher at 0 than it should, having too many ticks on the y axis, the plot being located too far from the title etc., which are different topics),

For almost 20 years, Math education has been recognized as the first killer application for symbolic computing. By taking out the grunt work of manipulating equations, calculating integrals and performing matrix computations with symbolic entries, systems such as Maple have transformed the math classroom.

I always have problems to simplify some complicated expressions to simpler ones. Here is an example of those: > A := exp(w*a)*w^2*epsilon1*epsilon2+exp(w*a)*w*epsilon1*s2-exp(-w*a)*w^2*epsilon1*epsilon2+w*s2*epsilon1*exp(-w*a)+exp(-w*a)*s1*epsilon2*w-s2*s1*exp(-w*a)+s1*exp(w*a)*epsilon2*w+s1*exp(w*a)*s2; > B := (w*epsilon1*((1+exp(2*w*a))*s2+(-1+exp(2*w*a))*w*epsilon2)+s1*((-1+exp(2*w*a))*s2+(1+exp(2*w*a))*w*epsilon2))*exp(-w*a); > simplify(A-B); 0

I got some expression but do not know how to get the simplest form by using simplify > C := -(1/2)*exp(-I*omega0*t)+(1/2)*exp((-beta-I*omega0-I*alpha)*t); > Csq := evalc(conjugate(C)*C); > simplify(Csq); -(1/2)*cos(omega0*t)*exp(-t*beta)*cos(omega0*t+t*alpha)+1/4-(1/2)*sin(omega0*t)*exp(-t*beta)*sin(omega0*t+t*alpha)+(1/4)*exp(-2*t*beta) which obviously should be equal to 1/4*(1+exp(-2*t*beta)-2*exp(-t*beta)*cos(t*alpha)). How can I get this form using Maple?

Hi! The attached worksheet and video tutorial display examples for how to determine if a matrix is diagonalizable, as well as how to diagonalize a matrix. Also, the worksheet contains a Brief Review that describes what a diagonalizable matrix is, what the Diagonalization Theorem is, and what the steps are to diagonalize a matrix.   Video Tutorial - Diagonalizing M

Maple 12.01 ID 363216 on MacOS 10.4.11

The only graphics format that Maple seems to accept from the clipboard via copy/paste is TIFF.

Is this correct, or am I missing something? In particular, I would want a way to copy/paste PNG or PDF.

TIA

--

JJW

 

<p>I wrote such a code (in Maple 11)</p>
<p><maple> f := unapply( n+m, m ); </maple></p>
<p><maple>print( f(1) ); </maple></p>
<p><maple>g := unapply( f(m), m ); </maple></p>
<p><maple>g(1) := f(1)+a; </maple></p>
<p><maple>print( f(1) ); </maple></p>
<p> </p>
<p>First print( f(1) ) prints   n+1, while second --- prints n+1+a.  Why?</p>
<p>I suppose that this is because of third line, which Maple interprets <br />
as ' g:= f ' (but it should not). Then changing the value g(1) changes <br />
f(1), too.</p>
<p>Isn't it strange?</p>

A dramatic change in how we interact with the environment demands an equally dramatic change in how we develop technology. The evolution of predictive technology – in other words, software - has been a precursor to the development of environmentally progressive technologies like clean coal power stations and hybrid energy vehicles.

Hi! This tutorial will show you how to find an Orthogonal or Orthonormal Basis for a set of vectors. The attached worksheet gives a brief review of the Gram-Schmidt process. It also articulates the solutions of two examples by using Maple's ability to normalize vectors and compute the dot product to find an orthogonal or orthonormal basis.   Watch the

Why does Maple fail to respond to

solve( {(560/243)*(x+1)^(-13/3)},{x});

 

 

Am trying Maple under Linux; have two GUI related questions:

1. Is it possible to change look-and-feel of the underlying Swing GUI?  The default one looks rather ugly...

2. Same note for default fonts used for GUI and document text - the text is not anti-aliased, and it looks rather ugly. So, is it possible to permanently change font(s) used by xmaple?

Thanks.

When I entered the following code I got the error "Warning, solutions may have been lost" I would like to know how to get rid of the warning. I also want to know the solutions found for x and n. How can I get them to be displayed?

restart;

r:=4000;

spr:=.005;

lpr:=0.030;

v:=8.90*10^(-4);

deltax:=0.2;

eqn1:=lplp+lpsp=1*10^(-8)*10000/98.06;

eqn2:=lplp=(n*pi*lpr^4)/(8*v*deltax);

eqn3:=lpsp=(x*pi*spr^4)/(8*v*deltax);

eqn4:=4000*n=x;

eqn5:={eqn1,eqn2,eqn3,eqn4};

solve(eqn5,{n,x});