Items tagged with simplification


I'm still quite new to maple and I'm working calculating some dynamic equations.

I want to be able to selectively group certain variables or numbers depending on how I need the equations to be showed, I don't know if that's possible, I´ll explain further.

In typewritting extended format one equation is shown like this:


And maple standard:

The fisrt thing I want is to show the time derivatives in the dot representation, but I also want the 1/2 multiplyting each term of the whole equation like in the maoke standard format. 

I also need to group certain variables in some other equations I have and I was wondering if there is a way to do this.

i have an expression, for example


how can i factor this expression to show it like this


tnx for help

hello. how can i solve this integral. thank you

I have the following expression


The parameters i and N are nonnegative integers and i is less than or equal to N. The purpose is to make it as short as possible. Based on my experience, it could be expressed as a small binomial expression or as a sum of two or three binomials. However, by Maple commands the conversion does not give me binomials or any smaller expression.

Is there any way for the conversion to binomials or any other conversion to shorten the expression?

I appreciate any help.


z := Diff(x(t),t)*y(t) + x(t)*Diff(y(t),t);

Is there a way to tell Maple to collapse that into Diff(x(t)*y(t), t) ?

I tried factor, combine, simplify, but none of them worked.



I'm creating a randomly generated question bank that generates the following STYLE or problem:


I'm currently trying to use the answer type "formula without simplification," as I'd like to avoid the students putting the questions in as the answer, and this has been driving me crazy for hours now.

I have tried the "maple" function to simplify. E.g.:

$ANS = maple("( $C1*( $V1^$A1 )*( $V2^$B1 ) ) / ( $C2*( $V1^$A2 )*( $V2^$B2 ) )");

But it always throws an error.

I have simply done the math in the algorithm section, so you end up with an answer variable like this:

$ANS = -4.0*(((z)^2.0)/(5.0*((p)^9.0)))

However, it will still count all answers submitted as incorrect.

Any help would be GREATLY appreciated =/.



Variable name clarification
I have $C1 and $C2, which are the constants of the numerator and denominator, respectively ("12" and "3" in the example).
I have $V1 and $V2 which are the first and second variable, respectively, (in the example, "x" and "y").
I have $A1 and $A2, which are the exponents for the variable $V1 in the numerator and denominator, respectively.
I have $B1 and $B2, which are the exponents for the variable $V2 in the numerator and denominator, respectively.

All these generate from some interesting conditions to create the problems I want (no variables named i, e, or o, for example,) but all properly initialize.

HI everyone,

As can be seen from the attached file, the first three equations of Eq. (5) will render some of the other equations (and other terms) redundant. How can I obtain a simplified system automatically?


Dear all:

I have used the "diff" command in Maple to help me derive a huge and very long function, and now I want to convert this huge expression from Maple to Matlab format, for example, into a Matlab .m file. The format of this expression in Maple is very different from Matlab.

So could you help me with this problem?

Thank you all.

Hi folks,

I've come across this project which involves large algebraic expressions and I need to be able to simplify it using Maples in-built features, but with no succes.

The problem involves trig-functions. For instance I have several expressions involving:

       cos(v)*sin(w)-cos(w)*sin(v)       which I know equals     -sin(v-w)

but even if I use simplify, trig, size and so on it won't apply the above identity. Btw there are several other identities that aren't applied either.

Is there any way to "force" the above identity into consideration??

how i can simplify

in code

taylor(f(x), x = gamma, 8);
f(x[n]) := subs([x-gamma = e[n], f(gamma) = 0, seq(((D@@k)(f))(gamma) = factorial(k)*c[k]*(D(f))(gamma), k = 1 .. 1000)], %);

1 2
f(gamma) + D(f)(gamma) (x - gamma) + - @@(D, 2)(f)(gamma) (x - gamma)

1 3 1 4
+ - @@(D, 3)(f)(gamma) (x - gamma) + -- @@(D, 4)(f)(gamma) (x - gamma)
6 24

1 5 1 6
+ --- @@(D, 5)(f)(gamma) (x - gamma) + --- @@(D, 6)(f)(gamma) (x - gamma)
120 720

1 7 / 8\
+ ---- @@(D, 7)(f)(gamma) (x - gamma) + O\(x - gamma) /
2 3
c[1] D(f)(gamma) e[n] + c[2] D(f)(gamma) e[n] + c[3] D(f)(gamma) e[n]

4 5 6
+ c[4] D(f)(gamma) e[n] + c[5] D(f)(gamma) e[n] + c[6] D(f)(gamma) e[n]

7 / 8\
+ c[7] D(f)(gamma) e[n] + O\e[n] /

taylor(D(f)(x), x = gamma, 8);
Df(x[n]) := subs([x-gamma = e[n], f(gamma) = 0, seq(((D@@k)(f))(gamma) = factorial(k)*c[k]*(D(f))(gamma), k = 2 .. 1000)], %);

D(f)(gamma) + @@(D, 2)(f)(gamma) (x - gamma)

1 2 1 3
+ - @@(D, 3)(f)(gamma) (x - gamma) + - @@(D, 4)(f)(gamma) (x - gamma)
2 6

1 4 1 5
+ -- @@(D, 5)(f)(gamma) (x - gamma) + --- @@(D, 6)(f)(gamma) (x - gamma)
24 120

1 6
+ --- @@(D, 7)(f)(gamma) (x - gamma)

1 7 / 8\
+ ---- @@(D, 8)(f)(gamma) (x - gamma) + O\(x - gamma) /
D(f)(gamma) + 2 c[2] D(f)(gamma) e[n] + 3 c[3] D(f)(gamma) e[n]

3 4
+ 4 c[4] D(f)(gamma) e[n] + 5 c[5] D(f)(gamma) e[n]

5 6
+ 6 c[6] D(f)(gamma) e[n] + 7 c[7] D(f)(gamma) e[n]

7 / 8\
+ 8 c[8] D(f)(gamma) e[n] + O\e[n] /

this last term did not use f(x[n]) value from above to solve it. plxx help if any one can solve it...


In the context of solving mechanical constraint equations, I often need to simplify trigonometric equation. In mathematica, the FullSimplify function makes the simplification I need. But, i'm using Maple for a long time and I would rather contnue my calculation with Mathematica.

May you see if so can help me to simplify this equation ?

Here the equation I would like to simplify with Maple :

Here the result obtained with mathematica


Thanks a lot for your help

Hello there,


Suppose I have a parametric experssion like   P(ε)=1+ε+ε23 where ε is very small. How can I get P(ε)≈1+ε or P(ε)≈1+ε+ε2



Below I try to use units for a simple expression, where "m" and "mm" is added on Windows using Ctrl-Shift-U.

Why does the value with unit "1 [[m]]" not show as "1 m" in (1), but simply as "m" ?

Why does the addition not result in "2 m" ?

At least I had expected the addition to be made when using "evalf()".


Sorry for boring you my friends. I am haunted by a problem of how to omit the undesired term.

For example, in the following equation, the a(t) , b(t), c(t), u(t), v(t), w(t), psi(t), phi(t), theta(t), varsigma(t), tau(t) and upsilon(t) and their first and second direvative to time t are considered as first order small variables. How could I omit the term greater than second order of small variables?

If we omit the undesired by hand, the omitted equation takes the form of:

R^2*rho*h*(diff(w(t), t, t))*Pi+R^2*rho*h*(diff(c(t), t, t))*Pi = 0;

The original equation is given as: 

-R^2*rho*h*cos(Omega*t)*(diff(tau(t), t, t))*a(t)*Pi+tau(t)*R^2*rho*h*(diff(tau(t), t))^2*a(t)*cos(Omega*t)*Pi-tau(t)*R^2*rho*h*(diff(tau(t), t))^2*b(t)*sin(Omega*t)*Pi+tau(t)*a(t)*Pi*cos(Omega*t)*(diff(varsigma(t), t))^2*R^2*h*rho+tau(t)*R^2*rho*h*a(t)*Omega^2*cos(Omega*t)*Pi-tau(t)*sin(Omega*t)*Pi*(diff(varsigma(t), t))^2*b(t)*R^2*h*rho-tau(t)*R^2*rho*h*b(t)*Omega^2*sin(Omega*t)*Pi+2*tau(t)*R^2*rho*h*(diff(a(t), t))*Omega*sin(Omega*t)*Pi+2*tau(t)*R^2*rho*h*(diff(b(t), t))*Omega*cos(Omega*t)*Pi-varsigma(t)*a(t)*sin(Omega*t)*Pi*(diff(varsigma(t), t))^2*R^2*h*rho-varsigma(t)*a(t)*sin(Omega*t)*Pi*Omega^2*R^2*h*rho-varsigma(t)*Pi*cos(Omega*t)*(diff(varsigma(t), t))^2*b(t)*R^2*h*rho-varsigma(t)*Pi*cos(Omega*t)*b(t)*Omega^2*R^2*h*rho-2*varsigma(t)*sin(Omega*t)*Pi*(diff(b(t), t))*Omega*R^2*h*rho+2*varsigma(t)*Pi*cos(Omega*t)*(diff(a(t), t))*Omega*R^2*h*rho+2*a(t)*Pi*cos(Omega*t)*(diff(varsigma(t), t))*Omega*R^2*h*rho-2*sin(Omega*t)*Pi*(diff(varsigma(t), t))*b(t)*Omega*R^2*h*rho+R^2*rho*h*(diff(tau(t), t, t))*sin(Omega*t)*b(t)*Pi+R^2*rho*h*(diff(w(t), t, t))*Pi+R^2*rho*h*(diff(c(t), t, t))*Pi-R^2*rho*h*(diff(tau(t), t))^2*c(t)*Pi+2*varsigma(t)*(diff(tau(t), t))*a(t)*Pi*cos(Omega*t)*(diff(varsigma(t), t))*R^2*h*rho-2*varsigma(t)*(diff(tau(t), t))*sin(Omega*t)*Pi*(diff(varsigma(t), t))*b(t)*R^2*h*rho+a(t)*sin(Omega*t)*Pi*(diff(varsigma(t), t, t))*R^2*h*rho+Pi*cos(Omega*t)*b(t)*(diff(varsigma(t), t, t))*R^2*h*rho-varsigma(t)*Pi*c(t)*(diff(varsigma(t), t, t))*R^2*h*rho-2*tau(t)*R^2*rho*h*(diff(tau(t), t))*(diff(c(t), t))*Pi-2*varsigma(t)*Pi*(diff(varsigma(t), t))*(diff(c(t), t))*R^2*h*rho+2*sin(Omega*t)*Pi*(diff(varsigma(t), t))*(diff(a(t), t))*R^2*h*rho+2*Pi*cos(Omega*t)*(diff(varsigma(t), t))*(diff(b(t), t))*R^2*h*rho-Pi*(diff(varsigma(t), t))^2*c(t)*R^2*h*rho-2*R^2*rho*h*cos(Omega*t)*(diff(tau(t), t))*(diff(a(t), t))*Pi+2*R^2*rho*h*(diff(tau(t), t))*sin(Omega*t)*(diff(b(t), t))*Pi+tau(t)*R^2*rho*h*(diff(b(t), t, t))*sin(Omega*t)*Pi-tau(t)*R^2*rho*h*(diff(a(t), t, t))*cos(Omega*t)*Pi-tau(t)*R^2*rho*h*(diff(tau(t), t, t))*c(t)*Pi+2*R^2*rho*h*Omega*sin(Omega*t)*(diff(tau(t), t))*a(t)*Pi+2*R^2*rho*h*(diff(tau(t), t))*Omega*cos(Omega*t)*b(t)*Pi+varsigma(t)*sin(Omega*t)*Pi*(diff(a(t), t, t))*R^2*h*rho+varsigma(t)*Pi*cos(Omega*t)*(diff(b(t), t, t))*R^2*h*rho = 0;


Thank you in advance for taking a look ;)

I'm trying to solve a recurrence relation by generating terms and looking for a pattern.  I've learned that i can't stop 

Maple's autosimplification process and the best I can do is use Parse from the InertForm package.  The hand drawn picture below is what I'm trying to replicate.  I know I can use rsolve but I'm trying to do the steps I would with pencil and paper.


1 2 3 4 Page 1 of 4