vv

14257 Reputation

20 Badges

11 years, 13 days

MaplePrimes Activity


These are replies submitted by vv

It is only (4.)  which intrigues me because simplify usually distributes over operands.

map(simplify, (sqrt(1-I)*sqrt(1+I)-sqrt(2))*(t+1));  # ==> 0

Nice remark. An even shorter procedure is

MaxL:= (a,b,c,r)-> sqrt(a^2+b^2+c^2)-2*r*sqrt((a^2+b^2+c^2)/min(a,b,c)^2-1);

 

What about 34234-2*17117 ?

BTW, F(a) = Kitonium's f(a),  but you think f is better.

@Kitonum 

This one is simpler and works for symbolic entries too:

F := a -> piecewise(is(a,odd),{(-a+1)/2,(-a-1)/2},{-round(a/2)});

 

Do you use a random generator for functions of two variables?

@guras 

 

@Jjjones98 

Then write S(n) as

Sum((1/k^0.1)*(sin(1/k)-1/k), k=1..n) +  Sum(1/k^(11/10), k=1..n);

The fist sum has a rapid convergence; for the second one use:

asympt(Sum(1/k^(11/10), k=1..n),n);
 

 

 

@Kitonum 

Actually the symbolic solution is probably useless (being too long) even without parametric and allsolutions.

You may be also interested in the related Apollonian circles
https://www.mapleprimes.com/questions/222071-Drawing-An-Apollonian-Gasket

Apollonius (of Perga) lived more than five centuries before Pappus.

Do you think that Maplesoft should invest a so much effort for typesetting?
Typesetting is a nice feature but I think that an excessive fine-tuning is too expensive.
I'd prefer these efforts be directed towards maths.
And anyway, Maple is not going to compete with LaTeX.
By the way, wouldn't it be more natural a LaTeX convention in the case of atomic variables?
It is not comfortable to use names like  `#msub(mi("x"),mn("1"))`  (in 1D notation)
(of course a macro() can be used here but even so...).

 

I also did not noticed the square. But Kitonum posted already a nice and complete solution.

P.S. It will be better in the future to post code instead of pictures.

@sajad 

 

Yes, Im(...) is strange. But here is something more strange:

 

> 

evalc(RootOf(_Z^3-_Z-1));

RootOf(64*_Z^9-96*_Z^7-48*_Z^6+36*_Z^5+12*_Z^4-19*_Z^3+3*_Z-1)+I*RootOf(64*_Z^9+96*_Z^7+36*_Z^5-23*_Z^3)

(1)
> 

Re(RootOf(_Z^3-_Z-1));

RootOf(_Z^3-_Z-1)

(2)

@_Maxim_ 

I think you forgot index=1 in RootOf. Then it works as expected.
(It's only evalf which takes index=1 by default.)


It seems that for rtables the procedure names are not correctly printed.

> 

restart;

> 

f:=x->x;

proc (x) options operator, arrow; x end proc

(1)
> 

V:=Vector([f,`+`,7,`or`]);

_rtable[18446744074325918774]

(2)
> 

V;

_rtable[18446744074325918774]

(3)
> 

W:=Vector(4,i->V[5-i]);

_rtable[18446744074330358238]

(4)
> 

%;

_rtable[18446744074330358238]

(5)
> 

V+W;

_rtable[18446744074330360998]

(6)
> 

%;

_rtable[18446744074330360998]

(7)
> 

 

@Mariusz Iwaniuk 

You cannot obtain this conclusion! The series could be divergent. for some c's.
As it is easy to check, the equation has at most 3 real roots,

@asa12 

Consider the row operation Eij of adding the row i to row j.
If  Eij . X = X  for each i,j (i<>j) then obviously X = O.

First 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Last Page 104 of 178