I have used "colour" as my spelling on optional inputs to procedures in my package.  How can I also handle the alternative spelling "color"?  
 

Download 2024-03-21_Q_colour_or_color.mw

Details here: non-dimensionalization.mw. Thanks!

In short, I want to plot all the ten roots of a 10th-degree polynomial in _Z with 4 or 5 primitive parameters. To do so, I need to find that combination of parameters that allows me to transform/scale/non-dimensionalize the original polynomial in a polynomial in _Z with just (1) one parameter or at maximum (2) two parameters. In the case of (1), I can plot its roots in a standard 2D plot against the single parameter. In the case of (2), I can plot the roots in a standard 3D plot against the two parameters.

May be someone can come up with a way to simplify this ode solution? I used the option useInt but the solution can be written in much simpler way than Maple gives.  Below is worksheet showing Maple's 2024 solution and my hand solution.

(having trouble uploading worksheet, will try again).

Download simpler_solution.mw

I keep losing the edits I do. I post screen shot. Click submit, then find all my changes are lost. Will try one more time and give up:

This is Maple solution

This is implified version

Both versions are verified correct by odetest. The question is there is a way to obtain the simpler form from Maple.

Hi,

I need your insights on two technical questions regarding my BoxPlot:

1) How to adjust the color of the text (Title and caption)

2) How to remove only the y-axis

Thank you

S5StatBoxPlotBtest.mw

I want to export plots as PNG but found in the past that when using commands to automate the process (and explicitly controlling for image quality) some symbolic notation on the axes or in the plots themselves are translated to 1D.

Anyway, regardless of the reason just provided, I have a preference for exporting plots as PNG manually rather than automatically in some of my scripts. How to do this while ensuring the best quality? By default, manual exports into PNG have quite bad quality. 

I was wondering why Maple do not give this simpler solution to this ode. It solves it as exact. But if solved as separable, the solution is much simpler.

I solved this by hand and Maple verifies my solution. You can see the separable solution is much simpler. Any tricks to make Maple gives the simpler solution?

Download why_not_this_simpler_solution.mw

Hand solution

Maple 2024

Hi

A padel group organises doubles tournaments with the following structure: 16 players participate in four rounds, with each round consisting of four doubles matches. Players switch partners after each round.

So what I require is some code to generate the first round matches, the second round, the third, the nth .....

note the worksheet I bastardised from Tom Leslie's work. 

2_man_teams_doubles.mw

it took me hrs to find this as my solution was failing verification and I did not know why.

What logic do you think Maple used to simplify this:

expr:=sqrt(1 + sin(x))/x;
simplify(expr)

To this

How could the above be simpler than

?

Compare to Mathematica

And this is what I expected. I am now scared to use simplify in Maple as I do not know what I will get back.

Is there a way to tell Maple not to do such strange "simplification"? I am doing this in code, and the code does not know what the expression is.

To see an example of the side effect of this, here is one, where if solution to an ode is simplified first, it no longer verifies by odetest without adding extra assumptions:

One does not expect that simplified solution no longer verfiies the ode.

Sure, I can do

          odetest(simplify(sol),ode) assuming real;

and now it gives 0. But the point is that the first one did not need assumptions.

Download simplify_with_odetest.mw

Maple 2024 on windows 10.

I am trying to tidy up cases where a proc returns multiple values. Have being trying Tabulate. I can get it to work when called after the results are returned. I would the procedure to do this but  keep acces to the name(s) assigned to the returned values.

A,B,C:= proc(...)  .....  return a, b, c    end proc. 

So basically display a tabulated of a, b, c.
 

Download 2024-03-18_Q_Format_Returned_Results_into_a_Table..mw

Hi,

I calculate the standard deviation using Maple, which differs from the standard deviation obtained by the calculator (TI). Can you provide an explanation for this difference?

Thanks

StDevQ.mw

I am trying to get Maple to simplify the following trigonometric expressions (for "generic" parameters) as much as possible: 

sineExpr(3) := (
   sin(a[2] - b[1])*sin(a[3] - b[1]))/(
   sin(b[2] - b[1])*sin(b[3] - b[1]))*sin(a[1] - b[1]) + (
   sin(a[3] - b[2])*sin(a[1] - b[2]))/(
   sin(b[3] - b[2])*sin(b[1] - b[2]))*sin(a[2] - b[2]) + (
   sin(a[1] - b[3])*sin(a[2] - b[3]))/(
   sin(b[1] - b[3])*sin(b[2] - b[3]))*sin(a[3] - b[3]);
 = 
   


sineExpr(4) := (
   sin(a[2] - b[1])*sin(a[3] - b[1])*sin(a[4] - b[1]))/(
   sin(b[2] - b[1])*sin(b[3] - b[1])*sin(b[4] - b[1]))*
   sin(a[1] - b[1]) + (
   sin(a[3] - b[2])*sin(a[4] - b[2])*sin(a[1] - b[2]))/(
   sin(b[3] - b[2])*sin(b[4] - b[2])*sin(b[1] - b[2]))*
   sin(a[2] - b[2]) + (
   sin(a[4] - b[3])*sin(a[1] - b[3])*sin(a[2] - b[3]))/(
   sin(b[4] - b[3])*sin(b[1] - b[3])*sin(b[2] - b[3]))*
   sin(a[3] - b[3]) + (
   sin(a[1] - b[4])*sin(a[2] - b[4])*sin(a[3] - b[4]))/(
   sin(b[1] - b[4])*sin(b[2] - b[4])*sin(b[3] - b[4]))*
   sin(a[4] - b[4]);
 = 

So far, all of my attempts have failed: 
 

Download sinIdentity.mw

Note that because zero testing is frequently considerably easier, combine always succeeds in showing that the difference between the simplest possible and the original version is zero. 

combine(sin((a[1]+a[2]+a[3])-(b[1]+b[2]+b[3]))-sineExpr(3));
 = 
                               0

combine(sin((a[1]+a[2]+a[3]+a[4])-(b[1]+b[2]+b[3]+b[4]))-sineExpr(4));
 = 
                               0

However, I wonder if Maple can thoroughly simplify them without knowing those known “simplest possible” form beforehand. 
I also tried some other functions like rationalize, radnormal, and `convert/trig`, yet Maple appears to have not been capable of completely simplifying even the sub-simplest case 𝑚＝2. Is there any workaround? 

Of note, it can be demonstrated inductively that ∀m∈ℕ_₊ 

where none of the denominators is 0. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, is it possible to transform  and  (as well as , if possible) into potentially more elegant forms (Ideally,  is rewritten into ,  is rewritten into , and  is rewritten into .) without any such a priori knowledge? 
In Mma, these may be done using TrigReduce directly (cf. ); unfortunately, I cannot found a Maple equivalent to such functionality. 

Good everyone,

I am solving a pde problem and I wanted to get the table values for u(0,0.1) but it's just returning the pds. Attach below is the maple worksheet for the code. 

Anyone with suggestions, please. 

Test.mw

 I am writing help pages for a package. The inital Overview should be at the top of the listing like in other Maple help directories. 

How to I do this? Mine is listing purely alphabetically.
 

Download Help_Edit_to_Database_2023.mw

Dear all 

I have an ideal, and code its definition  and I compute the height  but no result return. There is an error. 

height_ideal.mw

Thank you for you help

Hello

I am looking for an efficient code to divide a given integer n by another integer d as many times as possible.

For example:

For n=294912 and d=8 the answer shoud be 9, because 294912/8^5=9.

Thank you for your help.