@xavier

It's not working on my installation.

It would be good if someone else could try it on Windows (10).

How much time does it take to generate a sodoku?

Seconds, minutes, hours? I stopped after 2 hours

@ecterrab 

It's a long time ago that I had this lecture on tensors, which mainly dealt with curvlinear coordinate systems and deformations of them (structural mechanics). So I might not have used propper terms.

What I had in mind with expressions like "V M V" are physical quantity equations (literally translated - that's how I remember) which are tensorial equations meaning that they are valid independend of coordinate systems.

If possible I work with equations, do algebra to get symbolic results and only at the end plug in parameters for numerical results. These equation are most of the time scalar equations. For the parameters I use equations (no assignements) and eval/subs as well, which does not anihilate the symbolic results.

When browsing through physics tensors I was looking for examples that do the same with tensor equations. I.e. start with a tensor equation and then switch perspective between, for example, an innertial reference system and a rotating reference frame. This switching is similar to entering different sets of parameters but not anihilating the tensor equations.

Kind of stripped down tensor calculus in flat spacetime for engineers where different point of views are desirable or large deformations play role. The first part can be done with matrix and vectors provided the user knows the transformations (and does not confound back and forth transformation matricees). The second part needs tensors.

My dream was that Maple provides the constituing equations in coordinates of a desired reference frame with a push of a button.

Take this example of a rotating observer that neither sits in the innertial frame nor on the rotating body: (The Bizarre Behavior of Rotating Bodies. Doing here the physics right is quite a task.

This is maybe asked too much or easily possible with a subset of the Tensor package.

Please consider my question not as a feature request. My question was simply triggered by your explanations and the prospect that the Physics package could mabe lay a foundation for a larger user base. 

The package is huge achivement. I feel that the gap between what physist are taught (need to know and feel comfortable with; and what the tensor package provides) and what engineering will finally use is too large that non-physicist will have a look at the package. Some engineering examples might change this. As you said, Phycis,Tensors is more a compulsive reference manual.

@xavier

Do you mean not compatible with Maple 2015 or with Maple 2025?

I have tried

and [123,432] for rand number
and [1,1] number of grids

as you have indicated.

Maple 2025 and 2021 are evaluating but not finishing.

Can you give an example that works on your installation?

@ecterrab

If (one day?) a Latex to Word converter could produce paragraphs including "fancy symbols" (comparable to the scientific word 5.5 example from nm) that could be edited in Word then I would consider mw > tex > docx and classical vector notation. Editing of such symbols should be possible.

Maybe we are closer than we think to a direct Maple to Word export to generate decent (not neccessarily perfect) output that can be edited by non-Maple users.

The text of your apps cannot be easily copied and pasted for translation. This probably limits the audience by a factor of 10+.

What about english versions of your apps? In my opinion, the apps are worth the extra effort. 👍

By the way:

Can you provide an example?

@ecterrab 

This looks much simpler.  Only one question

I remember from a tensor lecture that we started with a physical law without indecees like

V M V

and then we moved to the indexed notation

V[i]*M[i, j]*V[j]

Why is the input to Maple "SumOverRepeatedIndices(V[i]*M[i, j]*V[j])" not recognised as SumOverRepeatedIndices(V[i]*M[i, j]*V[j])?

(Intuetively I would have tried something like eval[coordsystem](V*M*V) and hoped for Maple returning either an indexed expression or a summed-up expression with all the Kroneckers, Christophels and so on. We basically did only transformations form one coordinate system to another, which is a fraction of what Tensors offer. With Tensors definition of the spacetime comes first and then the physical laws).

@Scot Gould 

I agree that Maple's readbilty is excellent.

However, in a collaborative context with non-Maple users only pdf and Word documents make sense.

Word can read pdf generated by Maple but screws up the formating. I think the inability of most word processors to handle math expression is the reason why bold notation has become popular. (Bold handwritten does not make sense.) See what it does to Edgardos worksheet Java_Printing.pdf vs Java_Printing.pdf.docx

For this reason I either paste screen clippings in word doccuments or pretty print pdf with hidden input when I want to get close to text book quality. For the the later case I avoid the assignement operator and only use equations (as textbooks do).

For me Latex represents too much overhead for the gain in perfection. Maple is already pretty good. For this reason allone new CAS users should use Maple. The likelyhood that Maple is missing math functionality is neglidible.

@ecterrab 

Excellent. I had a look at tensors. Impressive but heavy stuff for the occasional user.

Is there a convert command that converts a matrix to a tensor for example to perform basic operations like omega*J*omega where J is the inertia tensor and omega the vector of angular velocity? I do not need spacetime and have tensors defined as matricees.

@Scot Gould 

I agree. The problem arrises if a word processor to describe expressions is used that cannot do arrows. Sharing technical documents for commenting and editing might require this. Word for example neither can arrows nor dot accents. Not talking about dotted and arrowed names.

The existance of such a document is interesting in itself.

True Monopolists like Microsoft or Adobe don't provide such information and don't innovate.

They probably have an internal document where they lag behind.

@ZnMnCr 

It seems that you use the rope component which is massless according to the helppage.

Since the helppage is silent about summary_tension, Maplesoft must clarify what summary_tension is.

What you showed here does not make sense to me.

The force at frame b should be exactly 10 N which is not.

When you add a force sensor between the cable and the rigid body frame, what is the force?

@Christopher2222 

I opend from here

Could it be that this is a browser which comes with Maple?

@mmcdara 

If I am not mistaken you plot the arithmetic mean. Can this be multiplied by a factor (pi/2?) to get a magnitude plot? This works here

to match my plot but not for the peaks. Any idea where this mismatch could come from?