How do I get the susset that contains unknowns on the rhs of the elements?

Download 2024-06-05_Q_Select_Remove_indet_elements.mw

I have a positive surface that I plot3d for bounded x- and y- value ranges. It reaches 1000 but it's mostly flat except almost at the edges of the x- and y-axes. Therefore, I inlcude view=[default,default,0..10] among the options of plot3d so that I can focus on the features of interest.

For coloring I use 'colorscheme'=["zgradient",["LightGray", "Gray", "Green"]]. However, this applies to the whole surface (up to 1000) and NOT exclusively to the viewed part as I would like to. 

Question: how to scale the zgradient so that it only applies to my "view" portion?

Note that I don't want to do this by using the 'markers' options to readjust the color splits manually, as I don't know the exact proportion and I don't want to randomly play around with different triplets until I achieve a visually satisfying result...

We see that this ode (x + y(x))*(1+diff(y(x),x)) = 0  has 2 solutions, One when (x + y(x))=0 and one when (1+diff(y(x),x))=0. Maple gives 3 solutions. They are correct but why?

Also when changing (1+diff(y(x),x)) to (a+diff(y(x),x)) now it gives only two solution.

Why does this happen? Should it not just return 2 solutions in both cases? and more strange one

(x + y(x))^2 *(1+diff(y(x), x))=0; now it gives 4 solutions. But this is no different. We also have 2 solutions. One when (x + y(x))=0 and one when (1+diff(y(x), x))=0. This time the extra two solutions are complex. 

Download why_extra_solution_from_dsolve_june_5_2024.mw

Any idea why this sometimes happens? odeadvisor says ode is quadrature but when asking it to solve it using quadrature sometimes it works and sometimes not.

Am I doing something wrong?

Download sometimes_dsolve_works_on_quadrature_june_5_2024.mw

Dear all

I have a data, how can I study this data using N-soft set : Normalized the data, membership function, analyse the risk, ..... compute the risk, interpret the results

Cancer_patient.xlsx

N_soft_set.mw

Thank you for your help

Maybe someone get the code working ?
 

with(plots):
with(VectorCalculus):

# Example 1: Vector Field and Visualization
V := [x, y, z]:
print("Vector Field V:", V):
fieldplot3d([V[1], V[2], V[3]], x = -2..2, y = -2..2, z = -2..2, arrows = slim, title = "Vector Field in 3D"):

# Example 2: Tangent Vector to a Curve
curve := [cos(t), sin(t), t]:
print("Curve:", curve):
tangent := diff(curve, t):
print("Tangent Vector:", tangent):
plot3d([cos(t), sin(t), t], t = 0..2*Pi, labels = [x, y, z], title = "Curve in 3D"):

# Example 3: Curvature of a Surface
u := 'u': v := 'v':
surface := [u, v, u^2 - v^2]:
print("Surface:", surface):

# Compute the first fundamental form
ru := [diff(surface[1], u), diff(surface[2], u), diff(surface[3], u)]:
rv := [diff(surface[1], v), diff(surface[2], v), diff(surface[3], v)]:
E := ru[1]^2 + ru[2]^2 + ru[3]^2:
F := ru[1]*rv[1] + ru[2]*rv[2] + ru[3]*rv[3]:
G := rv[1]^2 + rv[2]^2 + rv[3]^2:
firstFundamentalForm := Matrix([[E, F], [F, G]]):
print("First Fundamental Form:", firstFundamentalForm):

# Compute the second fundamental form
ruu := [diff(surface[1], u, u), diff(surface[2], u, u), diff(surface[3], u, u)]:
ruv := [diff(surface[1], u, v), diff(surface[2], u, v), diff(surface[3], u, v)]:
rvv := [diff(surface[1], v, v), diff(surface[2], v, v), diff(surface[3], v, v)]:
normal := CrossProduct(ru, rv):
normal := eval(normal / sqrt(normal[1]^2 + normal[2]^2 + normal[3]^2)):
L := ruu[1]*normal[1] + ruu[2]*normal[2] + ruu[3]*normal[3]:
M := ruv[1]*normal[1] + ruv[2]*normal[2] + ruv[3]*normal[3]:
N := rvv[1]*normal[1] + rvv[2]*normal[2] + rvv[3]*normal[3]:
secondFundamentalForm := Matrix([[L, M], [M, N]]):
print("Second Fundamental Form:", secondFundamentalForm):

# Compute the Christoffel symbols
# Ensure DifferentialGeometry package is loaded
with(DifferentialGeometry):
DGsetup([u, v], N):
Gamma := Christoffel(firstFundamentalForm):
print("Christoffel Symbols:", Gamma):

# Visualize the surface
plot3d([u, v, u^2 - v^2], u = -2..2, v = -2..2, labels = [u, v, z], title = "Saddle Surface in 3D"):

I was about to convert -1 to exp(I*Pi).

First try by intuition

convert(-1, exp);
                               -1

False intuition. Next try by right click on -1 and consulting the context pannel: -> nothing that rings a bell

Entering a complex number 0.5000000001 + 0.8660254037*I to see if that changes something

-> something but no exponential form
                          

Next: AI assitant

->   OK, I know this. -> refine query

Polar, of course!

convert(-1, polar);
                          polar(1, Pi)

Not what I want. Maybe

convert(convert(-1, polar), exp);
                               -1

Next -> Ask for help in MaplePrimes whether there is a command

In relation to my comment below:
https://www.mapleprimes.com/questions/238277-Robustness-Of-Plotevalsomething#comment301920 (whose my worksheet rho-analysis_mmcdara_Gammapositive_MaPal.mw builds on the Sturm's analysis of @mmcdara)

I would like to better understand how to isolate/pin down the 4 real roots whose existence was confirmed by Sturm's analysis. To do so, @acer suggested to look into RootFinding:-Parametric: rho-analysis_acc(1).mw. 
Questions:

1. Why the plot doesn't change if I also include -1<rho and rho<1 among the equations to solve? I understood that regions 1, 4 and 5 have 0 solutions anyway but if I add the constraints on rho I should expect 2 regions instead of 5, right?

2. I don't understand SampleSolutions(m,2)=0.56 and SampleSolutions(m,3)=0.51 (even after reading help page). How are these numeric values found?

3. Looking at the big picture, how to reconcile this CellPlot with A) my plot3d of Eq in https://www.mapleprimes.com/questions/238277-Robustness-Of-Plotevalsomething#comment301920 and B) @mmcdara Sturm's analysis. I am having a hard time putting all together.
   
   Thank you. 
   
   EDIT: I formulated this question by branching out from my comment https://www.mapleprimes.com/questions/238277-Robustness-Of-Plotevalsomething#comment301920 in the corresponding thread. If inappropriate, please help me migrate this question as appropriate. 

I tried to solve a hogher order ODE system to reduce first order ODE sytem. In this case I have assume a initial conditions as a variable. (sse the attachment, Conver_to_first_order.mw).

I got an error in specification of initial value...

How can I solve this problem in RKF45 method with shooting technique.

Here, I have assume f=x[1], f'=x[2]. f''=x[3], f'''=x[3]' and theta=x[4], theta'=x[5], theta''=x[5]'

I try to dot product 2 vector that contain time derivative

the answer should be v . u_rho = rhodot

but Maple doesn't give me a proper answer. What should i do?

kind regard

Any one could find why Maple 2024 gives Error, (in evalf/int) invalid arguments on this ode? Why is it even calling evalf in first place as this is all symbolic.

Also reported to Maplesof just in case.

Download odetest_internal_error_evalf_int_june_3_2024.mw

Probably I am missing the obvious. In the attached worksheet the for statement gives me all results as desired but if I try to put this in a procedure I only get the last value. Could someone help me out. Thank you  ProcQuestion.mw

Consider the equation  (2^x)*(27^(1/x)) = 24  for which we need to find the exact values ​​of its real roots. This is not difficult to solve by hand if you first take the logarithm of this equation to any base, after which the problem is reduced to solving a quadratic equation. But the  solve  command fails to solve this equation and returns the result in RootOf form. The problem is solved if we first ask Maple to take the logarithm of the equation. I wonder if the latest versions of Maple also do not directly address the problem?

restart;
Eq:=2^x*27^(1/x)=24:
solve(Eq, x, explicit);

map(ln, Eq); # Taking the logarithm of the equation
solve(%, x);
simplify({%}); # The final result

I wanted to do 

map(X->odetest(X,ode) assuming x>0,[sol]) 

where sol are the solutions I wanted to test. The above does not work as is. After some trial and errors, I found this works

map(X->[odetest(X,ode) assuming x>0],[sol]) 

I am not sure why. But it works. Is this the above the correct way to add assuming to a command inside Map? Or is there a different way or better way to do this?

I want to stick to the map command as above and nothing else such as ~ or some other ones. I find map more clear to use for me.

Here is worksheet.

Download how_to_use_map_with_assuming.mw

These  are good example(s)  why I think Maple's simplify needs to be improved. 

Example 1

Given an expression which is zero for nonnegative x, one would expect simplify to simplify it to zero when told that x is positive. 

But nothing I tried with simplify worked. combine  figured it out.

But why? Is this not the job of simplify? 

The expression is 

e:=x-1/4*(-2+2*(4*x^2+1)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(2+2*(4*x^2+1)^(1/2))^(1/2);

Here is worksheet

Compare some other software on this same problem

It should be as simple as the above in Maple.

A user should not have to try 100 different commands in Maple to find which works.

simplify should have done it in first place. What Am I overlooking here?

Maple 2024

Download why_simplify_do_not_work_example.mw

EXAMPLE 2

In this example the expression is zero for x<0. Here nothing worked for me. This is challenge for Maple experts here to find the command to simplify this to zero. 

I know it is zero for x<0.

e := -1/2*(-2*x*sqrt(4*x^2 + 1) + (16*x^3*sinh(3/2*arcsinh(2*x)) - 8*x^2*cosh(3/2*arcsinh(2*x))*sqrt(4*x^2 + 1) + 4*sinh(3/2*arcsinh(2*x))*x - cosh(3/2*arcsinh(2*x))*sqrt(4*x^2 + 1))*sqrt(-2 + 2*sqrt(4*x^2 + 1)))/sqrt(4*x^2 + 1)

Using some other software gives

I'd like to find command to do the same in Maple. i.e. simplify it to zero. What else to try?

Download why_simplify_do_not_work_example_2.mw