@acer 

Nice! I stop proposing better code because I could not call MakeInert this way inside a procedure:

InertFrom:-MakeInert(a);

restart;
a := 2*Unit('m');
InertFrom:-MakeInert(a);
with(InertForm):
MakeInert(a);

Why is that? Must I use uses?

@Carl Love 

Thank you. It is always worth taking a closer look when nm observes something during his/her extensive investigations.

I was about to ask a separate question whether and how the boundary to the complex domain can be determined or drawn, but decided against it because it is purely of interest and the question channel is quite busy.
 

@GunnerMunk 
For your sample example acers proc works already. The sine of a unit does not work but I think this is only an example.
Nice idea of using InertForm. 👍

Download Sample_reply.mw

If it is acceptable to enter a and b inert you can define a two argument procedure

p := proc(A,B,C,CC) # modified a=b=c proc form acer
  uses Typesetting;
  mrow(Typeset(A),mo("="),
       Typeset(B),mo("="),
       Typeset(C),mo("="),
       Typeset(CC));
end proc:
pp := proc(a,b) 
  p(A,a,b,value(a*b))
end proc:
pp(2 %* Unit('m'),3 %* Unit('m'))

You get.

@Carl Love 

I used the snipping tool on Windows 10 with delayed activation on a 4K Monitor.

Interesting: the font rendering of the annotation and the axes is different.

@nm 

Unfortuneately rendering of axes depends on the graphic card and drivers. Here is a related discussion where renderings of the same plot on Apple and two Windows PC can be compared.

2k or 4k contribute additionally

@Carl Love 

A very nice probe option. Really usefull! 👍

In particular in logmode!!!

What you have to do with my last answer is

Extract the coordinates and combine them in a way that they can be plotted with pointplot. Here are two ways

Solusi5(2.979);
pointlist := [[op([1, 2], %), op([2, 2], %)], [op([1, 2], %), op([3, 2], %)], [op([1, 2], %), op([4, 2], %)]];
rhs~(`%%`);
pointlist := [seq([%[1], %[i]], i = 2 .. 4)];
plots:-pointplot(pointlist);

Since you are already using some advanced commands it would be advisable to study also basic commands to manipulate expressions . I hope this helps

@Carl Love 

I get still the old box

@MaPal93

Solve without assumptions, as I understand it, returns solutions in the complex domain. Such solutions are of course valid for your assumptions since they only restrict the complex domain.
I would plug in some numbers to see

• if the solution becomes complex valued (I don't think so)
• and if there any souspicious names left

You can also use anames and unames to check for typos in names. 

About index subscripts: Theoretically it should work what you are doing. I simply have no experience and here are many questions that are related to the wrong use of indexes as subscripts. To stay away from those problems you could remove the brackets and the colon in rho__v[1, 2].

Personally, I use assumptions at the latest possible state to keep the solutoins as general as possible, which sometimes is not the best strategy since it can complicate expressions at an intermediate state to the point the a later simplification  does not work. It depends on the problem.

(The realdoaim package might be an option for you which avoids explicitly typing all assumptions.)

I am still not sure if assumptions are needed in your case since

• you got a general solution
• simplify with your assumptions does not simplify the solutions
• and the assumptions are independ from each other. It would be a different story if the assumptions would add  new algebraic constraints

Assumptions are beneficial for transcendental functions or non elementray functions. I Your case I do not see those. In what way you expect the general solution to change with your assumptions (shorter, simpler, piecwise with ranges,…).

@ Try

Solusi5(2.979);
 [t = 2.979, A(t) = 7490.84882618914, S(t) = 1594.24943917620, 

   l(t) = 4045.84836636772]

@Anthrazit 

Looks like a database comparision. Maybe the antivirus flags all software components that are outdated as high risk without any further evidence. Outdated software is a risk but also new versions can come with new risks. The key question is: Is there evidence of a security risk (this is not excluded: see below).

I have experience with 4 antivirus packages. Only one reminds me of outdated software but never mentionned Maple - so far.

That is something to bring to the attention to the IT responsible who introcued the new antivirus. He will most likely tell you not to use Maple anymore. :-(

Or if you are lucky he investigates the potential risk.

On the other hand only Mapelsoft can tell wheter the below is possible

I only find two files on my system which do not look threatfull.

What exacly does the Anitvirus list?

A server itself can be a threat. Are servers listed?

@acarchau 

Labels uniquely identify plot output. Is that what you are looking for?

from
https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/maple/view.aspx?path=plot%2foptions

Otherwise you can use plots,textplot to place tags on your own.

@vv

This explains another behavior (attached) I could not find an explanation for... I should have tried 2022 earlier.

By the way: is(w = conjugate(w)) is on all my installations falsely true. So no regression as in your other example

Thank you.

 Simplify_elliptic_in_real_domain.mw