@AHSAN 

There is no general solution for polynoms of fifth order accoridng to Abel-Ruffini Theoreme. For this reason I ttought that you wanted "somehow" identify and factor out one root and solve the remaining polynom of fourth-order. Without any assumptions on the indeterminants there is little hope that you will get a symbolic solution.

Solve sometimes can find solutions with assumptions that are not necessarily numeric. Q could be larger than m for example. Looking at the complex coefficients, I don't think that assumptions of this kind will change the situation.

Do you mean by separating a value: Factoring out a root of the ploynom?

Are all the other indeterminats {Br, N, Q, beta, k, lambda, m} real valued?

Can you give values for their ranges that could be used as assumptions for solve?

The operator is listed in Chapter 5 of the programming guide, but it is not explained. It is possible that it is mentioned and explained somewhere in a Maple file, but those files are unfortunately not searchable.

@mmcdara 
maybe acers answer here

@acer 

this way

DAE is key in this tricky case.
 

Thanks again

@acer

This page is really hidden. Not dsolve,numeric but dsolve,numeric,DAE

Many thanks!

By the way: Reading your answer, I have just tried two so called “AIs” on this by asking: “In Maple dsolve: what does the option differential do”. Although the help pages are very precisely written and were used for training, AI did not get the semantics at all. Since the word differential is so extensively used in the help pages an option differential (although textually in close proximity) as an own sematic entity is washed out in the training process.
Only one AI returned the right answer when the question was written in a way that pointed to the answer: "In Maple dsolve numeric for DAEs: what does the option differential stands for"

Not a yet a big help...

@MagnusMJ 

sometimes pays off!

Maybe you find the ini file in this hidden folder (you -> your account)

C:\Users\you\AppData\Roaming\Maple\2023

@acer 

Proofs in 2d math would not only be instructive but also a nice demonstration of Maple's capabilities producing texbook like output. Students and teachers will like it.

I think not many people are aware of it. Maybe worth considering doing this in the form of an example worksheet.

Do fun stuff and let it be known!

I have not found the right-panel subsexpression menu but replacing subexpressions is possible using subs. With that there is already allot functionality available that could justify a context pannel extension - if there is demand.

@acer

Thank you!

@acer 

Yes, what you demonstrate was my intention when I used the palette hands on to reproduce textbook snippets: Entering an assertion and doing some transformations on its elements to proof “something”. I see now that it is not that straight forward with a nice display in standard math notation.

Thank you for providing an example of proofs in textbook notation. In this case I see a clear advantage of using 2d input: What you click is what you read – the right parentheses provided it’s even correct.

Why the Logic package is not providing a lhs and rhs to easier refer to terms is a question for another day.

@Carl Love 

Finally it makes sense. Thank you!

Interesting Maplet.

I can guess some of the parameters but not all of them.

Could you give some explanations or examples?

What units should be used?

@Joe Riel 

It helps in combination with Carls response which uses &iff in a different way. What I would need now are examples how to manipulate, if possible, such assertions (on a student level).

@Carl Love 

Here is an example (using the arrow palette in Maple 2023) where Maples parser does not change the assertion. (That no equivalence symbol is returned is a different story. My intention was to keep the symbol, which I understand now, is nothing the Maple engine has a representation for.)

There is something with the examples of my original post, which I do not understand. The assertion is rephrased ("simplified") to something correct which wahshes out De Morgans laws, which I want to keep.

2d_Arrows.mw

The solution for the pendulum cannot be derived with "generic" methods available in Maple: see solution for pendulum and cantilever