@C_R No disagreement from me. Too small and in a challenging spot to locate. 

Thank you. I have written to Maplesoft about this several times. The solution, shown below, is what we have. But IMO, it is way too small. You have found the other possible indicator, the bottom-right-hand corner, in text. I have suggested adding the 3rd option: Text, Math, Non-math, or something like that. 

I, too, prefer to write in a Worksheet. In a Document, the indicator is elegant: the background changes color: White for text, grey for non-executable math, blue for executable math. While I do write Documents, I never recommend it for new users. I have asked that such an indicator be added to a Worksheet. 

That said, as someone who regularly uses both 2026 and 2023, I much prefer the newer interface. I find it cleaner, requiring less time hunting for options I rarely use. My students who use Windows this semester are amused by the interface that the Mac OS users still have to subject themselves to in the 2025 version. In the end, I think it will be a good move. But, I understand, it took me some period of time to get used to the new system. The only reason I don't completely switch to 2026 is that the printing/PDF export system has regressed to the point it is nearly unusable. 

Hopefully, your post will prompt a move to add a larger or more obvious indicator for the 3 forms of input. Thank you. 

@sand15 @nm @vv ​​​​​​​@dharr: Like dharr, I have been an educator in applied mathematics (natural sciences, mostly physics) at a set of undergraduate institutions for years. From this experience:

1) There is no need to learn the epsilon/delta description of continuity. I learned it in high school and never used it. In my experience, undergraduates either never learned it or do not remember it.

2) Undergraduates do understand the concept of infinity. They recognize that it is not a location. Hence, they understand that saying eval at x = infinity is mathematically illogical. This exact topic came up in class this semester while I was teaching basic Maple. (That said, I suspect that on occasions, I have used eval incorrectly.)

I am persuaded by nm's argument that a conditional statement could be added to the code so that, if one were to evaluate at x = infinity, it would return a warning or a FAIL. Beyond that, I agree with dharr: given how slow Maple can be, code efficiency is important. Overall, IMO, the issue is not coding. The issue is understanding the difference between the mathematical definition of evaluate and limit. A warning or FAIL for eval shouldn't be necessary, but it would be helpful. 

If you experience the case where MapleCloud hates you, causing you to constantly have to log in to MapleCloud and being unable to download updates from Maplesoft or the Physics package, the solution is simple! (But maybe not what you desire. Oh well.) 

Solution: Create a new Maplesoft account with a different email address, even if that email address forwards all emails to your desired email address. 

Outcome: Yeah, you might have now multiple accounts with Maplesoft, one for MaplePrimes and one for the MapleCloud, but at least you will receive updates. Consider it a MapleCloud reboot solution.

Alternatively, for easier memorization and the understanding of what the procedure does:

sol := MakeFunction(sin(x) + _C1, x)

is(A = B) ---> true

is(A = simplify(A))  ---> false

2025.2

A full playlist of the recordings can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlcD7K2JXjTDoWGpTIkr5QapssWaLwH0w

Thank you for recording the 2024 conference. Even though I attended the conference, I rewatched several of the talks and presentations. Some, multiple times. For 2025, like other Maple users, I will not be able to attend all the talks. Well-labeled and organized (playlist) videos will be highly useful.

I was amused by this article. It reminds us that large language models have limitations and that we should be aware of them. 

When I asked Google the question is x + y a polynomial, the response was:

No, "x/y" is not a polynomial because polynomials require only non-negative integer exponents and only involve multiplication, addition, and subtraction of variables and coefficients, not division by a variable.

Notice the LLM "misread" x+y as x/y.

However, when I asked the question is "x + y" a polynomial, the response was:

Yes, "x+y" is a polynomial because it is a mathematical expression composed of variables ("x" and "y") and coefficients, combined with addition and multiplication, where the variables are raised to non-negative whole-number powers (in this case, an implicit power of 1 for both x and y). 

As always, the phrasing of the question can be more important than the response. 

For full disclosure, this response was written with the aid of an LLM-based grammar and spelling checking program. You benefit from this program because you probably wouldn't have understood my post entirely if I hadn't used it.

@C_R I have not downloaded 2025.1 yet. If your problem happens again, does the "Windows menu key" + "Up arrow" work? It may not since there are many Windows-based features of a window in 2025 that do not. 

@Jwt
Here is another example of delaying the calculation of mod.

Download Delayed_modulus.mw

@ecterrab @nm It fails on 3 Windows machines using multiple WiFi systems. All run Win11.  No VPN is on. And while kernelopts(version) produces

   Maple 2025.0, X86 64 WINDOWS, Mar 24 2025, Build ID 1909157

I hadn't yet installed the updatable Physics package yet. So, trying it out: Physics:-Version produces:

`The "Physics Updates" package is not available for the version of Maple under development`

which may be a clue. Something may still exist in there even though I was pretty sure I deleted all traces of the beta. 

I have enough experience to find that such odd-ball situations that happen to me occur to about 1 in 10 people who use Maple. I'm one of the few who complain about it. LOL!

Through @Christopher2222 's assistance, I was able to download the package via a web interface. Now, it appears I have to use the "trick" every time because when I write:

SupportTools:-Version(latest)

I get this wonderful response:

 Error, (in PackageTools:-Install) unable to locate package with MapleCloud identifier 4797495082876928

And yet it knows that I'm not using the most recent version because SupportTools:-Version() tells me so. 

@ecterrab Yes, @nm has told me that the LaTeX-generating code in Maple is good. (I recommend you read my response to nm before you read the rest of my response.) 

However, I see no reason why the typical user:

1) has to invest any energy in learning LaTeX,

2) cannot use the wonderful (and improved in 2025, in my opinion) interface of Maple to generate a TeX-quality PDF directly. 

As I mentioned to nm, as a PDF-generating user nearly every day, I feel the PDF-generation part of Maple has regressed since 2023. (I create the documents using the 2025 version, but print them using the 2023 version). I am hoping your work on creating the Maple to LaTeX translator can be used to generate better-looking PDFs in the next version of Maple. 

@nm 

Thank you for your highly informative response to my comment. It includes content that supports my opinion that for the researcher who writes papers with mathematical statements, there should be no need to invest energy in learning the commands of TeX, LaTeX, or REMTex. As an analogy, we no longer need to know how to write assembly language code to solve differential equations. Instead, one should be able to use a WYSIWYG interface to generate a publicly accepted document. Most of the journals of interest to me prefer PDFs, although several journals, including Science, accept only DOC files. (I know one that accepts Maple worksheets.)

So, if one is happy with one's Maple document, all one has to do is export/print to a PDF. No TeX coding is required. However, some people prefer the typesetting from a TeX system. Therefore, maybe the most pleasing sentence in your comment is that Maple generates good LaTeX. I'm sure the fine people of Maplesoft are pleased to hear that from someone who highly values this type of document generation. And you are saying that a couple of processing steps later the result is a TeX-quality PDF. 

Hopefully, Maplesoft will improve the PDF-generation section of Maple, which, in my opinion, has regressed since 2023. Maybe they can license the code to use a LaTeX to PDF converter so that the intermediate steps through another program are not required. (Did you not already suggest this?)  Then, they will have achieved  PDF document generation from a WYSIWYG interface without having to learn TeX code.