To @acer and @mmcdara

I am sorry for my very late response. I posted this question and then I had to step away from the problem for a while and now I am back into it. 

Thank you both for the replies, I was unaware that I could get it to run that quickly, must not have been thinking hard enough. Both of your responses make sense, but if something else comes up I will be sure to ask. 

Thank you again. 

@Scot Gould 

..

@dharr 

Thank you. Yes something like that but I don't think it fully solves my problem. I will reformulate. 

However, you are correct E2 is a mess, and that is a construct of how I want to solve the problem. I can elaborate in more detail and that might make it more clear what I was hoping for, I will edit my question afterwords. The differential equation I want to solve is: 

Sum((-1)^n*n*2^(n - 1)*a[n]*diff(Phi(r), r)^(-1 + 2*n), n = 1 .. N)=Q/r

I want the solution for Phi(r) to be of the form

diff(Phi(r), r) = Sum(b[i]/r^i, i = 1 .. infinity)

Now say I truncate the first sum to N=2 and I want to get the first few coefficients b[i] which solve this equation, obviously this is an infinite sum but if we consider just the first few terms for simplicity

We have that b[1]=-Q,b[2]=0,b[3]=4a[2]Q^3 so on and so on. Is there a command that can do this while considering what the previous found coefficients are (ie set b[1]=Q,b[2]=0)? 

For some reason it doesn't like using f[4](0). If you change to f[4] it works fine for me. 

@Paras31 

I will continue to look at this. 

@Paras31 

I can plot yes. If those are the plots you are looking for let me dive a little deeper into it and get back to you ASAP. 

@Paras31

Try this one:

dsolve_fix_2.mw

You don't have a differential equation that is why you are getting the error. This is a integral equation, you would want to use the intsolve command. Although in doing this I do not get a solution. 

It is possible the plots created do not match the numeric values they state. My results match yours and do not match theirs even for the gamma=0.1 case, I only get the gamma=0.1 behaviour they show if my value is around 0.2. 

I got no errors, answer returned

Dsolve_Reply.mw

@ecterrab 

Thank you as well. 

@C_R 

I assumed that it was something like this, good to know my suspicions were correct. 

You are using multiplications between your partials and your potentials, you need to use d_[mu](A) if you want to have the partial actually evaluate on A. Secondly,  in other spots you are not multiplying two terms together just writing a single term (example gr, should be g*r). 

I think I fixed your problems in the attached code. Also, shouldnt you have some of your indices in a one up one down configuation in F? 

SU(2)_Reply.mw

@segfault 

Good luck with whatever you are trying to accomplish.

@segfault 

I was going to post an answer on here for you before I saw this exchange. 

Considering @ecterrab is the head of Maple Physics I would suggest you be much more respectful to his replies in the future. I have had issue with Maple physics in the past where I thought there were bugs but he appropriately responded and showed that some of the issues were my fault and I was not computing things properly. 

Regarding "pre-publication work", I have not once had my work stolen and published before I was done simply by asking for help on this Forum. This is not the kind of place people go scoping for ideas for manuscripts, it is for questions about Maple. 

If you look at my attached sheet you can do what you want.. if I am reading your issues properly. 

Define_MP.mw