@acer 

"With steps to reproduce" I thought more about reproducing the incomplete output. I saw this before the repeated equation labels appeared. So maybe there is annother bug. My first impression was that only one line of information is quite short for infolevel:=5 but did not consider that to be a malfunction.

@acer 

• open https://www.mapleprimes.com/view.aspx?sf=243654_question/repeated_equation_labels.mw
• execute the first two inputs
• insert a new document block after DEtools:-odeadvisor(ode[1])
• cut/paste DEtools:-odeadvisor(ode[1]) into new document block
• execute the second input

with Maple 2025 and 2026 performed

repeated_equation_labels_-_after_moving_odeadvisor_command.mw

@acer 

I still do not get the full output of dsolve with infolevel[dsolve]:= 5 when I move DEtools:-odeadvisor(ode[1]) to a new document block. A restart is required. 

Thanks 

@nm 

This will also be quite usefull elsewhere. However, I have to get better at type selection for subsindets. Thanks!

@acer 

This must be a language problem on my side. I have tried to resolve the contradiction by rewriting the original post. I have also removed the questions about absorbing a factor under a root but left a link to the original document. Absorbtion is inverse to the extraction of a factor from a radical which was sufficiently discussed in the former post.

@acer 
The only reason why I desire from time to time to rearrange Maple output is to make it easier understandable or to better match math formating conventions/habits. It's for communication not for doing math. Such output can be considered final. 

In this particular case, factoring/collecting (1+x) is something what most people would do by hand or other CAS do. An outsider would probably judge from Maple's output that the math engine is not as sophisticated as other engines. 

Other examples of Maple output that I like to change are the leading minus sign when Maple applies automatic sorting or the sqrt(2)/2 factor instead of dividing by sqrt(2).

With Maple clean document are possible. Maplesoft can be proud of it. To make a document even better a final touchup is desirable (from time to time). Hence Q1. (Q2 and Q3 are more to see whehere are better techniques).

Comming back to Q1. If there are no better ways collecting (x+1), that are ideally self-explaining, I would do the following

a = 1 + x;
isolate(%, x);
subs(%, %%, expr);

Are there really no other ways?

@nm 

I have submitted a software change request. Maple does not seem to recognise in this case that numerator and denominator contain polynoms with same primitive parts (but of different powers). Primitive parts, if I understand correctly, are fundamental in algebra and can be used to normailize expression. This probably also explains why evala sometimes is helpfull at simplifing expressions. 

Only if combine is used with my original assumptions, sqrt(2) is extracted and a subsequent simplify is effective with assumptions on beta. Intuetively I would not have expected that combine can extract sqrt(2).

I stopped trials with your assumption -1 < x which indicates that the result is valid for a larger domain. How to get there with Maple?

Output[61] without using a combine command is of course reason enough that Maplesoft has close look.

221298  
228066 

@acer @dharr

Thank you

Maybe an alternative:

In the view tab on the ribbon is an option where mouse scrolling worked on my Windows 11 installation. 

Using it involves quite some clicks and mouse movements...

The problem is that is can get "polutet" with Help Pages.

@acer 

Too bad that your utilities have dissapeared. They might have adressed a niche topic but there will allways be users striving for simplicity (in code and results) beyond looking for pragmatic solutions.

(Dumb and boring) AI is not a help here and I do not see an (affordable) AI agend testing "all" combinations of Maple commands with brute force anytime soon. 

I keep it with Leonadro Da Vinci who supposedly said:

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

@acer 

I am almost sure that I tried this but maybe I forgot to add the assumptions. 

It would be nice to have a routine that does the trial and error to find a solution. (Like int with the option 

method=_RETURNVERBOSE). I think @nm once showed here a routine that tried many "simplification" ways. 

Anyway, I am glad that I have asked. The command works for the elliptic integral to my full satisfaction.
Thank you.

PS.: I did not expect Maple 2026 to be any better. Is it?

@dharr 
Interesting and unexpected. I could not dedcuce this use from the help page of evala.
Thanks.

@acer 

Thank you

`&#128077`;

or

👍(not printing in text mode)

Good initiative. I am a bit worried that a new generation of engineers and managers trust AI too much.

I noticed in the ladder example provided on ExaktAI that units are not well handled (yet).

When ExaktAI (the underlying LLMs) can handle this, a list of 100 "typical" engineering problems would be interesting to benchmark.

A calcualtion annecdote came to my mind when reading your post: I learned from a retired optics specialist that, before the advent of computers, 3 independent human calculations where required before design and manufacturing of lens systems could start. Work was mentally so exhausting that the human caculators had a 6 hours working day... That was less than 70 years ago.