Product Tips & Techniques

Tips and Tricks on how to get the most about Maple and MapleSim

Until now I have been reading Maple Help files on the MAPLE website.  For convenience and mark-up, I have often dowloaded the help files and printed them on paper, only to find that the text over-runs the margins, and is therefore annoyingly incomplete.  On reflection, this is not surprising as the content is formatted for internet/web display!

TIP:  Instead, go to the bottom of the MAPLE help webpage of interest, click on the "Download Help Document" link and so download the Maple file:  e.g.  The helpfile can then be read (& executed) using MAPLE.


So here's something silly but cool you can do with Maple while you're "working" from home.

  • Record a few seconds of your voice on a microphone that's close to your mouth (probably using a headset). This is your dry audio.
  • On your phone, record a single clap of your hands in an enclosed space, like your shower cubicle or a closet. Trim this audio to the clap, and the reverb created by your enclosed space. This is your impulse response.
  • Send both sound files to whatever computer you have Maple on.
  • Using AudioTools:-Convolution, convolve the dry audio with the impulse response . This your wet audio and should sound a little bit like your voice was recorded in your enclosed space.

Here's some code. I've also attached my dry audio, an impulse response recorded in my shower (yes, I stood inside my shower, closed the door, and recorded a single clap of my hands on my phone), and the resulting wet audio.

with( AudioTools ):
dry_audio := Read( "MaryHadALittleLamb_sc.wav" ):
impulse_response := Read( "clap_sc.wav" ):
wet_audio := Normalize( Convolution( dry_audio, impulse_response ) ):
Write("wet_audio.wav", wet_audio );

A full Maple worksheet is here.

An expression sequence is the underlying data structure for lists, sets, and function call arguments in Maple. Conceptually, a list is just a sequence enclosed in "[" and "]", a set is a sequence (with no duplicate elements) enclosed in "{" and "}", and a function call is a sequence enclosed in "(" and ")". A sequence can also be used as a data structure itself:

> Q := x, 42, "string", 42;
                           Q := x, 42, "string", 42

> L := [ Q ];
                          L := [x, 42, "string", 42]

> S := { Q };
                            S := {42, "string", x}

> F := f( Q );
                          F := f(x, 42, "string", 42)

A sequence, like most data structures in Maple, is immutable. Once created, it cannot be changed. This means the same sequence can be shared by multiple data structures. In the example above, the list assigned to and the function call assigned to both share the same instance of the sequence assigned to . The set assigned to refers to a different sequence, one with the duplicate 42 removed, and sorted into a canonical order.

Appending an element to a sequence creates a new sequence. The original remains unaltered, and still referenced by the list and function call:

> Q := Q, a+b;
                        Q := x, 42, "string", 42, a + b

> L;
                             [x, 42, "string", 42]

> S;
                               {42, "string", x}

> F;
                            f(x, 42, "string", 42)

Because appending to a sequence creates a new sequence, building a long sequence by appending one element at a time is very inefficient in both time and space. Building a sequence of length this way creates sequences of lengths 1, 2, ..., -1, . The extra space used will eventually be reclaimed by Maple's garbage collector, but this takes time.

This leads to the subject of this article, which is how to create long sequences efficiently. For the remainder of this article, the sequence we will use is the Fibonacci numbers, which are defined as follows:

  • Fib(0) = 0
  • Fib(1) = 1
  • Fib() = Fib(-1) + Fib(-2) for all > 1

In a computer algebra system like Maple, the simplest way to generate individual members of this sequence is with a recursive function. This is also very efficient if option is used (and very inefficient if it is not; computing Fib() requires 2 Fib() - 1 calls, and Fib() grows exponentially):

> Fib := proc(N)
>     option remember;
>     if N = 0 then
>         0
>     elif N = 1 then
>         1
>     else
>         Fib(N-1) + Fib(N-2)
>     end if
> end proc:
> Fib(1);

> Fib(2);

> Fib(5);

> Fib(10);

> Fib(20);

> Fib(50);

> Fib(100);

> Fib(200);

Let's start with the most straightforward, and most inefficient way to generate a sequence of the first 100 Fibonacci numbers, starting with an empty sequence and using a for-loop to append one member at a time. Part of the output has been elided below in the interests of saving space:

> Q := ();
                                     Q :=

> for i from 0 to 99 do
>     Q := Q, Fib(i)
> end do:
> Q;
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584,

    4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368, 75025, 121393, 196418, 317811,


    51680708854858323072, 83621143489848422977, 135301852344706746049,


As mentioned previously, this actually produces 100 sequences of lengths 1 to 100, of which 99 will (eventually) be recovered by the garbage collector. This method is O(2) (Big O Notation) in time and space, meaning that producing a sequence of 200 values this way will take 4 times the time and memory as a sequence of 100 values.

The traditional Maple wisdom is to use the seq function instead, which produces only the requested sequence, and no intermediate ones:

> Q := seq(Fib(i),i=0..99);
Q := 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597,

    2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368, 75025, 121393, 196418,


    51680708854858323072, 83621143489848422977, 135301852344706746049,


This is O() in time and space; generating a sequence of 200 elements takes twice the time and memory required for a sequence of 100 elements.

As of Maple 2019, it is also possible to achieve O() performance by constructing a sequence directly using a for-expression, without the cost of constructing the intermediate sequences that a for-statement would incur:

> Q := (for i from 0 to 99 do Fib(i) end do);
Q := 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597,

    2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368, 75025, 121393, 196418,


    51680708854858323072, 83621143489848422977, 135301852344706746049,


This method is especially useful when you wish to add a condition to the elements selected for the sequence, since the full capabilities of Maple loops can be used (see The Two Kinds of Loops in Maple). The following two examples produce a sequence containing only the odd members of the first 100 Fibonacci numbers, and the first 100 odd Fibonacci numbers respectively:

> Q := (for i from 0 to 99 do
>           f := Fib(i);
>           if f :: odd then
>               f
>           else
>               NULL
>           end if
>       end do);
Q := 1, 1, 3, 5, 13, 21, 55, 89, 233, 377, 987, 1597, 4181, 6765, 17711, 28657,

    75025, 121393, 317811, 514229, 1346269, 2178309, 5702887, 9227465,


    19740274219868223167, 31940434634990099905, 83621143489848422977,


> count := 0:
> Q := (for i from 0 while count < 100 do
>           f := Fib(i);
>           if f :: odd then
>               count += 1;
>               f
>           else
>               NULL
>           end if
>       end do);
Q := 1, 1, 3, 5, 13, 21, 55, 89, 233, 377, 987, 1597, 4181, 6765, 17711, 28657,

    75025, 121393, 317811, 514229, 1346269, 2178309, 5702887, 9227465,


    898923707008479989274290850145, 1454489111232772683678306641953,

    3807901929474025356630904134051, 6161314747715278029583501626149

> i;

A for-loop used as an expression generates a sequence, producing one member for each iteration of the loop. The value of that member is the last expression computed during the iteration. If the last expression in an iteration is NULL, no value is produced for that iteration.

Examining after the second loop completes, we can see that 149 Fibonacci numbers were generated to find the first 100 odd ones. (The loop control variable is incremented before the while condition is checked, hence is one more than the number of completed iterations.)

Until now, we've been using calls to the Fib function to generate the individual Fibonacci numbers. These numbers can of course also be generated by a simple loop which, together with assignment of its initial conditions, can be written as a single sequence:

> Q := ((f0 := 0),
>       (f1 := 1),
>       (for i from 2 to 99 do
>            f0, f1 := f1, f0 + f1;
>            f1
>        end do));
Q := 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597,

    2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368, 75025, 121393, 196418,


    51680708854858323072, 83621143489848422977, 135301852344706746049,


A Maple Array is a mutable data structure. Changing an element of an Array modifies the Array in-place; no new copy is generated:

> A := Array([a,b,c]);
                                A := [a, b, c]

> A[2] := d;
                                   A[2] := d

> A;
                                   [a, d, c]

It is also possible to append elements to an array, either by using programmer indexing, or the recently introduced ,= operator:

> A(numelems(A)+1) := e; # () instead of [] denotes "programmer indexing"
                               A := [a, d, c, e]

> A;
                                 [a, d, c, e]

Like appending to a sequence, this sometimes causes the existing data to be discarded and new data to be allocated, but this is done in chunks proportional to the current size of the Array, resulting in time and memory usage that is still O(). This can be used to advantage to generate sequences efficiently:

> A := Array(0..1,[0,1]);
                              [ 0..1 1-D Array       ]
                         A := [ Data Type: anything  ]
                              [ Storage: rectangular ]
                              [ Order: Fortran_order ]

> for i from 2 to 99 do
>     A ,= A[i-1] + A[i-2]
> end do:
> A;
                           [ 0..99 1-D Array      ]
                           [ Data Type: anything  ]
                           [ Storage: rectangular ]
                           [ Order: Fortran_order ]

> Q := seq(A);
Q := 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597,

    2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368, 75025, 121393, 196418,


    51680708854858323072, 83621143489848422977, 135301852344706746049,


Although unrelated specifically to the goal of producing sequences, the same techniques can be used to construct Maple strings efficiently:

> A := Array("0");
                                   A := [48]

> for i from 1 to 99 do
>    A ,= " ", String(Fib(i))
> end do:
> A;
                           [ 1..1150 1-D Array     ]
                           [ Data Type: integer[1] ]
                           [ Storage: rectangular  ]
                           [ Order: Fortran_order  ]

> A[1..10];
                   [48, 32, 49, 32, 49, 32, 50, 32, 51, 32]

> S := String(A);
S := "0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765 \
    10946 17711 28657 46368 75025 121393 196418 317811 514229 832040 134626\
    9 2178309 3524578 5702887 9227465 14930352 24157817 39088169 63245986 1\
    02334155 165580141 267914296 433494437 701408733 1134903170 1836311903 \
    2971215073 4807526976 7778742049 12586269025 20365011074 32951280099 53\
    316291173 86267571272 139583862445 225851433717 365435296162 5912867298\
    79 956722026041 1548008755920 2504730781961 4052739537881 6557470319842\
     10610209857723 17167680177565 27777890035288 44945570212853 7272346024\
    8141 117669030460994 190392490709135 308061521170129 498454011879264 80\
    6515533049393 1304969544928657 2111485077978050 3416454622906707 552793\
    9700884757 8944394323791464 14472334024676221 23416728348467685 3788906\
    2373143906 61305790721611591 99194853094755497 160500643816367088 25969\
    5496911122585 420196140727489673 679891637638612258 1100087778366101931\
     1779979416004714189 2880067194370816120 4660046610375530309 7540113804\
    746346429 12200160415121876738 19740274219868223167 3194043463499009990\
    5 51680708854858323072 83621143489848422977 135301852344706746049 21892\

A call to the Array constructor with a string as an argument produces an array of bytes (Maple data type integer[1]). The ,= operator can then be used to append additional characters or strings, with O() efficiency. Finally, the Array can be converted back into a Maple string.

Constructing sequences in Maple is a common operation when writing Maple programs. Maple gives you many ways to do this, and it's worthwhile taking the time to choose a method that is efficient, and suitable to the task at hand.

Maple 2020 offers many improvements motivated and driven by our users.

Every single update in a new release has a story behind it. It might be a new function that a customer wants, a response to some feedback about usability, or an itch that a developer needs to scratch.

I’ll end this post with a story about acoustic guitars and how they drove improvements in signal and audio processing. But first, here are some of my personal favorites from Maple 2020.

Graph theory is a big focus of Maple 2020. The new features include more control over visualization, additional special graphs, new analysis functions, and even an interactive layout tool.

I’m particularly enamoured by these:

  • We’ve introduced new centrality measures - these help you determine the most influential vertices, based on their connections to other vertices
  • You now have more control over the styling of graphs – for example, you can vary the size or color of a nodebased on its centrality

I’ve used these two new features to identify the most influential MaplePrimes users. Get the worksheet here.

@Carl Love – looks like you’re the biggest mover and shaker on MaplePrimes (well, according to the eigenvector centrality of the MaplePrimes interaction graph).

We’ve also started using graph theory elsewhere in Maple. For example, you can generate static call graph to visualize dependencies between procedures calls in a procedure

You now get smoother edges for 3d surfaces with non-numeric values. Just look at the difference between Maple 2019 and 2020 for this plot.

Printing and PDF export has gotten a whole lot better.  We’ve put a lot of work into the proper handling of plots, tables, and interactive components, so the results look better than before.

For example, plots now maintain their aspect ratio when printed. So your carefully constructed psychrometric chart will not be squashed and stretched when exported to a PDF.

We’ve overhauled the start page to give it a cleaner, less cluttered look – this is much more digestible for new users (experienced users might find the new look attractive as well!). There’s a link to the Maple Portal, and an updated Maple Fundamentals guide that helps new users learn the product.

We’ve also linked to a guide that helps you choose between Document and Worksheet, and a link to a new movie.

New messages also guide new users away from some very common mistakes. For example, students often type “e” when referring to the exponential constant – a warning now appears if that is detected

We’re always tweaking existing functions to make them faster. For example, you can now compute the natural logarithm of large integers much more quickly and with less memory.

This calculation is about 50 times faster in Maple 2020 than in prior versions:

Many of our educators have asked for this – the linear algebra tutorials now return step by step solutions to the main document, so you have a record of what you did after the tutor is closed.

Continuing with this theme, the Student:-LinearAlgebra context menu features several new linear algebra visualizations to the Student:-LinearAlgebra Context Menu. This, for example, is an eigenvector plot.

Maple can now numerically evaluate various integral transforms.

The numerical inversion of integral transforms has application in many branches of science and engineering.

Maple is the world’s best tool for the symbolic solution of ODEs and PDEs, and in each release we push the boundary back further.

For example, Maple 2020 has improved tools for find hypergeometric solutions for linear PDEs.

This might seem like a minor improvement that’s barely worth mentions, but it’s one I now use all the time! You can now reorder worksheet tabs just by clicking and dragging.

The Hough transform lets you detect straight lines and line segments in images.

Hough transforms are widely used in automatic lane detection systems for autonomous driving. You can even detect the straight lines on a Sudoku grid!

The Physics package is always a pleasure to write about because it's something we do far better than the competition.

The new explore option in TensorArray combines two themes in Maple - Physics and interactive components. It's an intuitive solution to the real problem of viewing the contents of higher dimensional tensorial expressions.

There are many more updates to Physics in Maple 2020, including a completely rewritten FeynmanDiagrams command.

The Quantum Chemistry Toolbox has been updated with more analysis tools and curriculum material.

There’s more teaching content for general chemistry.

Among the many new analysis functions, you can now visualize transition orbitals.

I promised you a story about acoustic guitars and Maple 2020, didn’t I?

I often start a perfectly innocuous conversation about Maple that descends into several weeks of intense, feverish work.

The work is partly for me, but mostly for my colleagues. They don’t like me for that.

That conversation usually happens on a Friday afternoon, when we’re least prepared for it. On the plus side, this often means a user has planted a germ of an idea for a new feature or improvement, and we just have to will it into existence.

One Friday afternoon last year, I was speaking to a user about acoustic guitars. He wanted to synthetically generate guitar chords with reverb, and export the sound to a 32-bit Wave file. All of this, in Maple.

This started a chain of events that that involved least-square filters, frequency response curves, convolution, Karplus-Strong string synthesis and more. We’ll package up the results of this work, and hand it over to you – our users – over the next one or two releases.

Let me tell you what made it into Maple 2020.

Start by listening to this:

It’s a guitar chord played twice, the second time with reverb, both generated with Maple.

The reverb was simulated with convolving the artificially generated guitar chord with an impulse response. I had a choice of convolution functions in the SignalProcessing and AudioTools packages.

Both gave the same results, but we found that SignalProcessing:-Convolution was much faster than its AudioTools counterpart.

There’s no reason for the speed difference, so R&D modified AudioTools:-Convolution to leverage SignalProcessing:-Convolution for the instances for which their options are compatible. In this application, AudioTools:-Convolution is 25 times faster in Maple 2020 than Maple 2019!

We also discovered that the underlying library we use for the SignalProcessing package (the Intel IPP) gives two options for convolution that we were previously not using; a method which use an explicit formula and a “fast” method that uses FFTs. We modified SignalProcessing:-Convolution to accept both options (previously, we used just one of the methods),

That’s the story behind two new features in Maple 2020. Look at the entirety of what’s new in this release – there’s a tale for each new feature. I’d love to tell you more, but I’d run out of ink before I finish.

To read about everything that’s new in Maple 2020, go to the new features page.

When discussing Maple programming, we often refer to for-loops, while-loops, until-loops, and do-loops (the latter being an infinite loop). But under the hood, Maple has only two kinds of loop, albeit very flexible and powerful ones that can combine the capabilities of any or all of the above, making it possible to write very concise code in a natural way.

Before looking at some actual examples, here is the formal definition of the loops' syntax, expressed in Wirth Syntax Notation, where "|" denotes alternatives, "[...]" denotes an optional part, "(...)" denotes grouping, and Maple keywords are in boldface:

[ for  ] [ from  ] [ by  ] [ to  ]
    [ while  ]
( end do | until  )
[ for  [ , variable ] ] in 
    [ while  ]
( end do | until  )

In the first form, every part of the loop syntax is optional, except the do keyword before the body of the loop, and either end do or an until clause after the body. (For those who prefer it, end do can also be written as od.) In the second form, only the in clause is required.

The simplest loop is just:

end do

This will repeat the forever, unless a break or return statement is executed, or an error occurs.

One or two loop termination conditions can be added:

  • A while clause can be written before the do, specifying a condition that is tested before each iteration begins. If the condition evaluates to false, the loop ends.
  • An until clause can be written instead of the end do, specifying a condition that is tested after each iteration finishes. If the condition evaluates to true, the loop ends.

A so-called for-loop is just a loop to which iteration clauses have been added. These can take one of two forms:

  • Any combination of for (with a single variable), from, by, and to clauses. The last three can appear in any order.
  • A for clause with one or two variables, followed by an in clause.

The following for-loop executes 10 times:

for  from 1 to 10 do
end do

However, if the doesn't depend on the value of , both the for and from clauses can be omitted:

to 10 do
end do

In this case, Maple supplies an implicit for clause (with an inaccessible internal variable), as well as an implicit "from 1" clause. In fact, all of the clauses are optional, and the infinite loop shown earlier is understood by Maple in exactly the same way as:

for  from 1 by 1 to infinity while true do
until false

When looping over the contents of a container, such as a one-dimensional array A, there are several possible approaches. The one closest to how it would be done in most other programming languages is (this example and those that follow can be copied and pasted into a Maple session):

 := Array([,"foo",42]);
for  from lowerbound() to upperbound() do
end do;

If only the entries in the container are of interest, it is not necessary to loop over the indices. Instead, one can write:

 := Array([,"foo",42]);
for  in  do
end do;

If both the indices and values are needed, one can write:

 := Array([,"foo",42]);
for ,  in  do
end do;

For a numerically indexed container such as an Array, this is equivalent to the for-from-to example. However, this method also works with arbitrarily indexed containers such as a Matrix or table:

 := LinearAlgebra:-RandomMatrix(2,3);
for ,  in  do
end do;
 := table({1="one","hello"="world",=42});
for ,  in eval() do
end do;

(The second example requires the call to eval due to last-name evaluation of tables in Maple, a topic for another post.)

As with a simple do-loop, a while and/or until clause can be added. For example, the following finds the first negative entry, if any, in a Matrix (traversing the Matrix in storage order):

 := LinearAlgebra:-RandomMatrix(2,3);
for ,  in  do
    # nothing to do here
until  < 0;
if  < 0 then
end if;

Notice that the test, < 0, is written twice, since it is possible that the Matrix has no negative entry. Another way to write the same loop but only perform the test once is as follows:

 := LinearAlgebra:-RandomMatrix(2,3);
for ,  in  do
    if  < 0 then
    end if;
end do;

Here, we perform the test within the loop, perform the desired processing on the found value (just printing in this case), and use a break statement to terminate the loop.

Sometimes, it is useful to abort the current iteration of the loop and move on to the next one. The next statement does exactly that. The following loop prints all the indices but only the positive values in a Matrix:

 := LinearAlgebra:-RandomMatrix(2,3);
for ,  in  do
    if  < 0 then
    end if;
end do;

(Note that a simple example like this would be better written by enclosing the printing of the value in an if-statement instead of using next. The latter is generally only used if the former is not possible.)

Maple's loop statements are very flexible and powerful, making it possible to write loops with complex combinations of termination conditions in a concise yet readable way. The ability to use while and/or until in conjunction with for means that break statements are often unnecessary, further improving clarity.

Playing mini-golf recently, I realized that my protractor can only help me so far since it can't calculate the speed of the swing needed.  I decided a more sophisticated tool was needed and modeled a trick-shot in MapleSim.

To start, I laid out the obstacles, the ball and club, the ground, and some additional visualizations in the MapleSim environment.


When running the simulation, my first result wasn't even close to the hole (similar to when I play in real life!).


The model clearly needed to be optimized. I went to the Optimization app in MapleSim (this can be found under Add Apps or Templates  on the left hand side).


Inside the app I clicked "Load System" then selected the parameters I wanted to optimize.


For this case, I'm optimizing 's' (the speed of the club) and 'theta' (the angle of the club). For the Objective Function I added a Relative Translation Sensor to the model and attached a probe to the Vector Norm of the output.


Inside the app, I switched to the Objective Function section.  Selecting Probes, I added the new probe as the Objective Function by giving it a weight of 1.



Scrolling down to "Execute Parameter Optimization", I checked the "Use Global Optimization Toolbox" checkbox, and clicked Run Parameter Optimization.


Following a run time of 120 seconds, the app returns the graph of the objective function. 


Below the plot, optimal values for the parameters are given. Plugging these back into the parameter block for the simulation we see that the ball does in fact go into the hole. Success!





Feynman Diagrams
The scattering matrix in coordinates and momentum representation


Mathematical methods for particle physics was one of the weak spots in the Physics package. There existed a FeynmanDiagrams command, but its capabilities were too minimal. People working in the area asked for more functionality. These diagrams are the cornerstone of calculations in particle physics (collisions involving from the electron to the Higgs boson), for example at the CERN. As an introduction for people curious, not working in the area, see "Why Feynman Diagrams are so important".


This post is thus about a new development in Physics: a full rewriting of the FeynmanDiagrams command, now including a myriad of new capabilities (mainly a. b. and c. in the Introduction), reversing the previous status of things entirely. This is work in collaboration with Davide Polvara from Durham University, Centre for Particle Theory.


The complexity of this material is high, so the introduction to the presentation below is as brief as it can get, emphasizing the examples instead. This material is reproducible in Maple 2019.2 after installing the Physics Updates, v.598 or higher.




At the end they are attached the worksheet corresponding to this presentation and a PDF version of it, as well as the new FeynmanDiagrams help page with all the explanatory details.



A scattering matrix S relates the initial and final states, `#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("i"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&verbar;",close = "&rang;")` and `#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("f"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&verbar;",close = "&rang;")`, of an interacting system. In an 4-dimensional spacetime with coordinates X, S can be written as:

S = T(exp(i*`#mrow(mo("&int;"),mi("L"),mo("&ApplyFunction;"),mfenced(mi("X")),mo("&DifferentialD;"),msup(mi("X"),mn("4")))`))


where i is the imaginary unit  and L is the interaction Lagrangian, written in terms of quantum fields  depending on the spacetime coordinates  X. The T symbol means time-ordered. For the terminology used in this page, see for instance chapter IV, "The Scattering Matrix", of ref.[1] Bogoliubov, N.N., and Shirkov, D.V. Quantum Fields.


This exponential can be expanded as

S = 1+S[1]+S[2]+S[3]+`...`



S[n] = `#mrow(mo("&ApplyFunction;"),mfrac(msup(mi("i"),mi("n")),mrow(mi("n"),mo("&excl;")),linethickness = "1"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&int;"),mi("&hellip;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&int;"),mi("T"),mo("&ApplyFunction;"),mfenced(mrow(mi("L"),mo("&ApplyFunction;"),mfenced(mi("\`X__1\`")),mo("&comma;"),mi("&hellip;"),mo("&comma;"),mi("L"),mo("&ApplyFunction;"),mfenced(mi("\`X__n\`")))),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&DifferentialD;"),msup(mi("\`X__1\`"),mn("4")),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("&hellip;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&DifferentialD;"),msup(mi("\`X__n\`"),mn("4")))`


and T(L(X[1]), `...`, L(X[n])) is the time-ordered product of n interaction Lagrangians evaluated at different points. The S matrix formulation is at the core of perturbative approaches in relativistic Quantum Field Theory.


In connection, the FeynmanDiagrams  command has been rewritten entirely for Maple 2020. In brief, the new functionality includes computing:


The expansion S = 1+S[1]+S[2]+S[3]+`...` in coordinates representation up to arbitrary order (the limitation is now only your hardware)


The S-matrix element `#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("f"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("i"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")` in momentum representation up to arbitrary order for given number of loops and initial and final particles (the contents of the `#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("i"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&verbar;",close = "&rang;")` and `#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("f"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&verbar;",close = "&rang;")` states); optionally, also the transition probability density, constructed using the square of the scattering matrix element abs(`#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("f"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("i"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")`)^2, as shown in formula (13) of sec. 21.1 of ref.[1].


The Feynman diagrams (drawings) related to the different terms of the expansion of S or of its matrix elements `#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("f"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("i"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")`.


Interaction Lagrangians involving derivatives of fields, typically appearing in non-Abelian gauge theories, are also handled, and several options are provided enabling restricting the outcome in different ways, regarding the incoming and outgoing particles, the number of loops, vertices or external legs, the propagators and normal products, or whether to compute tadpoles and 1-particle reducible terms.




For illustration purposes set three coordinate systems , and set phi to represent a quantum operator


Setup(mathematicalnotation = true, coordinates = [X, Y, Z], quantumoperators = phi)

`Systems of spacetime coordinates are:`*{X = (x1, x2, x3, x4), Y = (y1, y2, y3, y4), Z = (z1, z2, z3, z4)}




[coordinatesystems = {X, Y, Z}, mathematicalnotation = true, quantumoperators = {phi}]


Let L be the interaction Lagrangian

L := lambda*phi(X)^4

lambda*Physics:-`^`(phi(X), 4)


The expansion of S in coordinates representation, computed by default up to order = 3 (you can change that using the option order = n), by definition containing all possible configurations of external legs, displaying the related Feynman Diagrams, is given by

%eval(S, `=`(order, 3)) = FeynmanDiagrams(L, diagrams)




%eval(S, order = 3) = 1+%FeynmanIntegral(lambda*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(X), phi(X), phi(X))), [[X]])+%FeynmanIntegral(16*lambda^2*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(X), phi(X), phi(Y), phi(Y), phi(Y)), [[phi(X), phi(Y)]])+96*lambda^2*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(Y)), [[phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Y)]])+72*lambda^2*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(X), phi(Y), phi(Y)), [[phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Y)]]), [[X], [Y]])+%FeynmanIntegral(1728*lambda^3*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(X), phi(Y), phi(Y), phi(Z), phi(Z)), [[phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(Z), phi(Y)]])+2592*lambda^3*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(X), phi(Y), phi(Y)), [[phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(Z), phi(Y)], [phi(Z), phi(Y)]])+10368*lambda^3*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(Y), phi(Z), phi(Z)), [[phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)]])+10368*lambda^3*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(Y)), [[phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)]])+3456*lambda^3*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(X)), [[phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)]])+576*lambda^3*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(X), phi(X), phi(Y), phi(Y), phi(Z), phi(Z), phi(Z)), [[phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)]]), [[X], [Y], [Z]])


The expansion of S  in coordinates representation to a specific order shows in a compact way the topology of the underlying Feynman diagrams. Each integral is represented with a new command, FeynmanIntegral , that works both in coordinates and momentum representation. To each term of the integrands corresponds a diagram, and the correspondence is always clear from the symmetry factors.

In a typical situation, one wants to compute a specific term, or scattering process, instead of the S matrix up to some order with all possible configurations of external legs. For example, to compute only the terms of this result that correspond to diagrams with 1 loop use numberofloops = 1 (for tree-level, use numerofloops = 0)

%eval(S, [`=`(order, 3), `=`(loops, 1)]) = FeynmanDiagrams(L, numberofloops = 1, diagrams)

%eval(S, [order = 3, loops = 1]) = %FeynmanIntegral(72*lambda^2*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(X), phi(Y), phi(Y)), [[phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Y)]]), [[X], [Y]])+%FeynmanIntegral(1728*lambda^3*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(X), phi(Y), phi(Y), phi(Z), phi(Z)), [[phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(Z), phi(Y)]]), [[X], [Y], [Z]])


In the result above there are two terms, with 4 and 6 external legs respectively.

A scattering process with matrix element `#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("f"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("i"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")` in momentum representation, corresponding to the term with 4 external legs (symmetry factor = 72), could be any process where the total number of incoming + outgoing parties is equal to 4. For example, one with 2 incoming and 2 outgoing particles. The transition probability for that process is given by

`#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("&phi;",fontstyle = "normal",mathcolor = "olive"),mo("&comma;",mathcolor = "olive"),mi("&phi;",fontstyle = "normal",mathcolor = "olive"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("&phi;",fontstyle = "normal",mathcolor = "olive"),mo("&comma;",mathcolor = "olive"),mi("&phi;",fontstyle = "normal",mathcolor = "olive"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;",mathcolor = "olive")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")` = FeynmanDiagrams(L, incomingparticles = [phi, phi], outgoingparticles = [phi, phi], numberofloops = 1, diagrams)


`#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("&phi;",fontstyle = "normal",mathcolor = "olive"),mo("&comma;",mathcolor = "olive"),mi("&phi;",fontstyle = "normal",mathcolor = "olive"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("&phi;",fontstyle = "normal",mathcolor = "olive"),mo("&comma;",mathcolor = "olive"),mi("&phi;",fontstyle = "normal",mathcolor = "olive"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;",mathcolor = "olive")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")` = %FeynmanIntegral((9/8)*lambda^2*Dirac(-P__3-P__4+P__1+P__2)/(Pi^6*(E__1*E__2*E__3*E__4)^(1/2)*(p__2^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-P__1-P__2-p__2)^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__2]])+%FeynmanIntegral((9/8)*lambda^2*Dirac(-P__3-P__4+P__1+P__2)/(Pi^6*(E__1*E__2*E__3*E__4)^(1/2)*(p__2^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-P__1+P__3-p__2)^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__2]])+%FeynmanIntegral((9/8)*lambda^2*Dirac(-P__3-P__4+P__1+P__2)/(Pi^6*(E__1*E__2*E__3*E__4)^(1/2)*(p__2^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-P__1+P__4-p__2)^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__2]])


When computing in momentum representation, only the topology of the corresponding Feynman diagrams is shown (i.e. the diagrams associated to the corresponding Feynman integral in coordinates representation).

The transition matrix element `#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("f"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("i"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")` is related to the transition probability density dw (formula (13) of sec. 21.1 of ref.[1]) by

dw = (2*Pi)^(3*s-4)*n__1*`...`*n__s*abs(F(p[i], p[f]))^2*delta(sum(p[i], i = 1 .. s)-(sum(p[f], f = 1 .. r)))*` d `^3*p[1]*` ...`*`d `^3*p[r]

where n__1*`...`*n__s represent the particle densities of each of the s particles in the initial state `#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("i"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&verbar;",close = "&rang;")`, the delta (Dirac) is the expected singular factor due to the conservation of the energy-momentum and the amplitude F(p[i], p[f])is related to `#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("f"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("i"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")` via

`#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("f"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("i"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")` = F(p[i], p[f])*delta(sum(p[i], i = 1 .. s)-(sum(p[f], f = 1 .. r)))

To directly get the probability density dw instead of`#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("f"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("i"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")`use the option output = probabilitydensity

FeynmanDiagrams(L, incomingparticles = [phi, phi], outgoingparticles = [phi, phi], numberofloops = 1, output = probabilitydensity)

Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-ProbabilityDensity(4*Pi^2*%mul(n[i], i = 1 .. 2)*abs(F)^2*Dirac(-P__3-P__4+P__1+P__2)*%mul(dP_[f]^3, f = 1 .. 2), F = %FeynmanIntegral((9/8)*lambda^2/(Pi^6*(E__1*E__2*E__3*E__4)^(1/2)*(p__2^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-P__1-P__2-p__2)^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__2]])+%FeynmanIntegral((9/8)*lambda^2/(Pi^6*(E__1*E__2*E__3*E__4)^(1/2)*(p__2^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-P__1+P__3-p__2)^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__2]])+%FeynmanIntegral((9/8)*lambda^2/(Pi^6*(E__1*E__2*E__3*E__4)^(1/2)*(p__2^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-P__1+P__4-p__2)^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__2]]))


In practice, the most common computations involve processes with 2 or 4 external legs. To restrict the expansion of the scattering matrix in coordinates representation to that kind of processes use the numberofexternallegs option. For example, the following computes the expansion of S up to order = 3, restricting the outcome to the terms corresponding to diagrams with only 2 external legs

%eval(S, [`=`(order, 3), `=`(legs, 2)]) = FeynmanDiagrams(L, numberofexternallegs = 2, diagrams)

%eval(S, [order = 3, legs = 2]) = %FeynmanIntegral(96*lambda^2*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(Y)), [[phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Y)]]), [[X], [Y]])+%FeynmanIntegral(3456*lambda^3*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(X)), [[phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)]])+10368*lambda^3*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(Y)), [[phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)]]), [[X], [Y], [Z]])


This result shows two Feynman integrals, with respectively 2 and 3 loops, the second integral with two terms. The transition probability density in momentum representation for a process related to the first integral (1 term with symmetry factor = 96) is then

FeynmanDiagrams(L, incomingparticles = [phi], outgoingparticles = [phi], numberofloops = 2, diagrams, output = probabilitydensity)

Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-ProbabilityDensity((1/2)*%mul(n[i], i = 1 .. 1)*abs(F)^2*Dirac(-P__2+P__1)*%mul(dP_[f]^3, f = 1 .. 1)/Pi, F = %FeynmanIntegral(%FeynmanIntegral(((3/8)*I)*lambda^2/(Pi^7*(E__1*E__2)^(1/2)*(p__2^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*(p__3^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-P__1-p__2-p__3)^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__2]]), [[p__3]]))


In the above, for readability, the contracted spacetime indices in the square of momenta entering the amplitude F (as denominators of propagators) are implicit. To make those indices explicit, use the option putindicesinsquareofmomentum

F = FeynmanDiagrams(L, incoming = [phi], outgoing = [phi], numberofloops = 2, indices)

`* Partial match of  '`*indices*`' against keyword '`*putindicesinsquareofmomentum*`' `


F = %FeynmanIntegral(%FeynmanIntegral(((3/8)*I)*lambda^2*Dirac(-P__2[`~kappa`]+P__1[`~kappa`])/(Pi^7*(E__1*E__2)^(1/2)*(p__2[mu]*p__2[`~mu`]-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*(p__3[nu]*p__3[`~nu`]-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-P__1[beta]-p__2[beta]-p__3[beta])*(-P__1[`~beta`]-p__2[`~beta`]-p__3[`~beta`])-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__2]]), [[p__3]])


This computation can also be performed to higher orders. For example, with 3 loops, in coordinates and momentum representations, corresponding to the other two terms and diagrams in (1.7)

%eval(S[3], [`=`(legs, 2), `=`(loops, 3)]) = FeynmanDiagrams(L, legs = 2, loops = 3)

`* Partial match of  '`*legs*`' against keyword '`*numberoflegs*`' `


`* Partial match of  '`*loops*`' against keyword '`*numberofloops*`' `


%eval(S[3], [legs = 2, loops = 3]) = %FeynmanIntegral(3456*lambda^3*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(X)), [[phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)]])+10368*lambda^3*_GF(_NP(phi(X), phi(Y)), [[phi(X), phi(Y)], [phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(X), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)], [phi(Y), phi(Z)]]), [[X], [Y], [Z]])


A corresponding S-matrix element in momentum representation:

%eval(%Bracket(phi, S[3], phi), `=`(loops, 3)) = FeynmanDiagrams(L, incomingparticles = [phi], outgoingparticles = [phi], numberofloops = 3)

%eval(%Bracket(phi, S[3], phi), loops = 3) = %FeynmanIntegral(%FeynmanIntegral(%FeynmanIntegral((9/32)*lambda^3*Dirac(-P__2+P__1)/(Pi^11*(E__1*E__2)^(1/2)*(p__3^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*(p__4^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*(p__5^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-p__3-p__4-p__5)^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-P__1+P__2+p__3+p__4+p__5)^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__3]]), [[p__4]]), [[p__5]])+2*%FeynmanIntegral(%FeynmanIntegral(%FeynmanIntegral((9/32)*lambda^3*Dirac(-P__2+P__1)/(Pi^11*(E__1*E__2)^(1/2)*(p__3^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*(p__4^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*(p__5^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-p__3-p__4-p__5)^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-P__1+p__4+p__5)^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__3]]), [[p__4]]), [[p__5]])+%FeynmanIntegral(%FeynmanIntegral((1/2048)*lambda*Dirac(-P__2+P__1)*%FeynmanIntegral(576*lambda^2/((p__2^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-p__2-p__4-p__5)^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__2]])/(Pi^11*(E__1*E__2)^(1/2)*(p__4^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*(p__5^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((-P__1+p__4+p__5)^2-m__phi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__4]]), [[p__5]])


Consider the interaction Lagrangian of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). To formulate this problem on the worksheet, start defining the vector field A[mu].


`Defined objects with tensor properties`


{A[mu], Physics:-Dgamma[mu], P__1[mu], P__2[mu], Physics:-Psigma[mu], Physics:-d_[mu], Physics:-g_[mu, nu], p__1[mu], p__2[mu], p__3[mu], p__4[mu], p__5[mu], Physics:-LeviCivita[alpha, beta, mu, nu], Physics:-SpaceTimeVector[mu](X), Physics:-SpaceTimeVector[mu](Y), Physics:-SpaceTimeVector[mu](Z)}


Set lowercase Latin letters from i to s to represent spinor indices (you can change this setting according to your preference, see Setup ), also the (anticommutative) spinor field will be represented by psi, so set psi as an anticommutativeprefix, and set A and psi as quantum operators

Setup(spinorindices = lowercaselatin_is, anticommutativeprefix = psi, op = {A, psi})

`* Partial match of  '`*op*`' against keyword '`*quantumoperators*`' `




[anticommutativeprefix = {psi}, quantumoperators = {A, phi, psi}, spinorindices = lowercaselatin_is]


The matrix indices of the Dirac matrices  are written explicitly and use conjugate  to represent the Dirac conjugate conjugate(psi[j])

L__QED := alpha*conjugate(psi[j](X))*Dgamma[mu][j, k]*psi[k](X)*A[mu](X)

alpha*Physics:-`*`(conjugate(psi[j](X)), psi[k](X), A[mu](X))*Physics:-Dgamma[`~mu`][j, k]


Compute S[2], only the terms with 4 external legs, and display the diagrams: all the corresponding graphs have no loops

%eval(S[2], `=`(legs, 4)) = FeynmanDiagrams(L__QED, numberofvertices = 2, numberoflegs = 4, diagrams)

%eval(S[2], legs = 4) = %FeynmanIntegral(-2*alpha^2*Physics:-Dgamma[`~mu`][j, k]*Physics:-Dgamma[`~alpha`][i, l]*_GF(_NP(psi[k](X), A[mu](X), conjugate(psi[i](Y)), A[alpha](Y)), [[psi[l](Y), conjugate(psi[j](X))]])+alpha^2*Physics:-Dgamma[`~mu`][j, k]*Physics:-Dgamma[`~alpha`][i, l]*_GF(_NP(conjugate(psi[j](X)), psi[k](X), conjugate(psi[i](Y)), psi[l](Y)), [[A[mu](X), A[alpha](Y)]]), [[X], [Y]])


The same computation but with only 2 external legs results in the diagrams with 1 loop that correspond to the self-energy of the electron and the photon (page 218 of ref.[1])

%eval(S[2], `=`(legs, 2)) = FeynmanDiagrams(L__QED, numberofvertices = 2, numberoflegs = 2, diagrams)



%eval(S[2], legs = 2) = %FeynmanIntegral(-2*alpha^2*Physics:-Dgamma[`~mu`][j, k]*Physics:-Dgamma[`~alpha`][i, l]*_GF(_NP(psi[k](X), conjugate(psi[i](Y))), [[A[mu](X), A[alpha](Y)], [psi[l](Y), conjugate(psi[j](X))]])-alpha^2*Physics:-Dgamma[`~mu`][j, k]*Physics:-Dgamma[`~alpha`][i, l]*_GF(_NP(A[mu](X), A[alpha](Y)), [[psi[l](Y), conjugate(psi[j](X))], [psi[k](X), conjugate(psi[i](Y))]]), [[X], [Y]])


where the diagram with two spinor legs is the electron self-energy. To restrict the output furthermore, for example getting only the self-energy of the photon, you can specify the normal products you want:

%eval(S[2], [`=`(legs, 2), `=`(products, _NP(A, A))]) = FeynmanDiagrams(L__QED, numberofvertices = 2, numberoflegs = 2, normalproduct = _NP(A, A))

`* Partial match of  '`*normalproduct*`' against keyword '`*normalproducts*`' `


%eval(S[2], [legs = 2, products = _NP(A, A)]) = %FeynmanIntegral(alpha^2*Physics:-Dgamma[`~mu`][j, k]*Physics:-Dgamma[`~alpha`][i, l]*_GF(_NP(A[mu](X), A[alpha](Y)), [[conjugate(psi[j](X)), psi[l](Y)], [psi[k](X), conjugate(psi[i](Y))]]), [[X], [Y]])


The corresponding S-matrix elements in momentum representation

`#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("&psi;",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("&psi;",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")` = FeynmanDiagrams(L__QED, incomingparticles = [psi], outgoing = [psi], numberofloops = 1, diagrams)


`#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("&psi;",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("&psi;",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")` = -%FeynmanIntegral((1/8)*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-Uspinor[psi][i](P__1_)*conjugate(Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-Uspinor[psi][l](P__2_))*(-Physics:-g_[alpha, nu]+p__2[nu]*p__2[alpha]/m__A^2)*alpha^2*Physics:-Dgamma[`~alpha`][l, m]*Physics:-Dgamma[`~nu`][n, i]*((P__1[beta]+p__2[beta])*Physics:-Dgamma[`~beta`][m, n]+m__psi*Physics:-KroneckerDelta[m, n])*Dirac(-P__2+P__1)/(Pi^3*(p__2^2-m__A^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((P__1+p__2)^2-m__psi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__2]])


In this result we see u[psi] spinor (see ref.[2]), and the propagator of the field A[mu] with a mass m[A]. To indicate that this field is massless use

Setup(massless = A)

`* Partial match of  '`*massless*`' against keyword '`*masslessfields*`' `




[masslessfields = {A}]


Now the propagator for A[mu] is the one of a massless vector field:

FeynmanDiagrams(L__QED, incoming = [psi], outgoing = [psi], numberofloops = 1)

-%FeynmanIntegral(-(1/8)*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-Uspinor[psi][i](P__1_)*conjugate(Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-Uspinor[psi][l](P__2_))*Physics:-g_[alpha, nu]*alpha^2*Physics:-Dgamma[`~alpha`][l, m]*Physics:-Dgamma[`~nu`][n, i]*((P__1[beta]+p__2[beta])*Physics:-Dgamma[`~beta`][m, n]+m__psi*Physics:-KroneckerDelta[m, n])*Dirac(-P__2+P__1)/(Pi^3*(p__2^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((P__1+p__2)^2-m__psi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__2]])


The self-energy of the photon:

`#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("A"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("A"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")` = FeynmanDiagrams(L__QED, incomingparticles = [A], outgoing = [A], numberofloops = 1)

`#mfenced(mrow(mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("A"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("S"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mo("&verbar;"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;"),mi("A"),mo("&InvisibleTimes;")),open = "&lang;",close = "&rang;")` = -%FeynmanIntegral((1/16)*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-PolarizationVector[A][nu](P__1_)*conjugate(Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-PolarizationVector[A][alpha](P__2_))*(m__psi*Physics:-KroneckerDelta[l, n]+p__2[beta]*Physics:-Dgamma[`~beta`][l, n])*alpha^2*Physics:-Dgamma[`~alpha`][n, i]*Physics:-Dgamma[`~nu`][m, l]*((P__1[tau]+p__2[tau])*Physics:-Dgamma[`~tau`][i, m]+m__psi*Physics:-KroneckerDelta[i, m])*Dirac(-P__2+P__1)/(Pi^3*(E__1*E__2)^(1/2)*(p__2^2-m__psi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)*((P__1+p__2)^2-m__psi^2+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)), [[p__2]])


where epsilon[A] is the corresponding polarization vector.

When working with non-Abelian gauge fields, the interaction Lagrangian involves derivatives. FeynmanDiagrams  can handle that kind of interaction in momentum representation. Consider for instance a Yang-Mills theory with a massless field B[mu, a] where a is a SU2 index (see eq.(12) of sec. 19.4 of ref.[1]). The interaction Lagrangian can be entered as follows

Setup(su2indices = lowercaselatin_ah, massless = B, op = B)

`* Partial match of  '`*massless*`' against keyword '`*masslessfields*`' `


`* Partial match of  '`*op*`' against keyword '`*quantumoperators*`' `




[masslessfields = {A, B}, quantumoperators = {A, B, phi, psi, psi1}, su2indices = lowercaselatin_ah]


Define(B[mu, a], quiet)

F__B[mu, nu, a] := d_[mu](B[nu, a](X))-d_[nu](B[mu, a](X))

Physics:-d_[mu](B[nu, a](X), [X])-Physics:-d_[nu](B[mu, a](X), [X])


L := (1/2)*g*LeviCivita[a, b, c]*F__B[mu, nu, a]*B[mu, b](X)*B[nu, c](X)+(1/4)*g^2*LeviCivita[a, b, c]*LeviCivita[a, e, f]*B[mu, b](X)*B[nu, c](X)*B[mu, e](X)*B[nu, f](X)

(1/2)*g*Physics:-LeviCivita[a, b, c]*Physics:-`*`(Physics:-d_[mu](B[nu, a](X), [X])-Physics:-d_[nu](B[mu, a](X), [X]), B[`~mu`, b](X), B[`~nu`, c](X))+(1/4)*g^2*Physics:-LeviCivita[a, b, c]*Physics:-LeviCivita[a, e, f]*Physics:-`*`(B[mu, b](X), B[nu, c](X), B[`~mu`, e](X), B[`~nu`, f](X))


The transition probability density at tree-level for a process with two incoming and two outgoing B particles is given by

FeynmanDiagrams(L, incomingparticles = [B, B], outgoingparticles = [B, B], numberofloops = 0, output = probabilitydensity, factor, diagrams)

`* Partial match of  '`*factor*`' against keyword '`*factortreelevel*`' `




Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-ProbabilityDensity(4*Pi^2*%mul(n[i], i = 1 .. 2)*abs(F)^2*Dirac(-P__3[`~sigma`]-P__4[`~sigma`]+P__1[`~sigma`]+P__2[`~sigma`])*%mul(dP_[f]^3, f = 1 .. 2), F = (((1/8)*I)*Physics:-LeviCivita[a1, a3, h]*((-P__1[`~kappa`]-P__2[`~kappa`]-P__4[`~kappa`])*Physics:-g_[`~lambda`, `~tau`]+(P__1[`~lambda`]+P__2[`~lambda`]+P__3[`~lambda`])*Physics:-g_[`~kappa`, `~tau`]-Physics:-g_[`~kappa`, `~lambda`]*(P__3[`~tau`]-P__4[`~tau`]))*Physics:-LeviCivita[a2, d, g]*((P__1[`~beta`]+(1/2)*P__2[`~beta`])*Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~sigma`]+(-(1/2)*P__1[`~sigma`]+(1/2)*P__2[`~sigma`])*Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~beta`]-(1/2)*Physics:-g_[`~beta`, `~sigma`]*(P__1[`~alpha`]+2*P__2[`~alpha`]))*Physics:-g_[sigma, tau]*Physics:-KroneckerDelta[a2, a3]/((-P__1[chi]-P__2[chi])*(-P__1[`~chi`]-P__2[`~chi`])+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)-((1/16)*I)*((-P__1[`~beta`]+P__3[`~beta`]-P__4[`~beta`])*Physics:-g_[`~lambda`, `~tau`]+(P__1[`~lambda`]-P__2[`~lambda`]-P__3[`~lambda`])*Physics:-g_[`~beta`, `~tau`]+Physics:-g_[`~beta`, `~lambda`]*(P__2[`~tau`]+P__4[`~tau`]))*Physics:-LeviCivita[a1, a3, g]*((P__1[`~sigma`]+P__3[`~sigma`])*Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~kappa`]+(-2*P__1[`~kappa`]+P__3[`~kappa`])*Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~sigma`]+Physics:-g_[`~kappa`, `~sigma`]*(P__1[`~alpha`]-2*P__3[`~alpha`]))*Physics:-LeviCivita[a2, d, h]*Physics:-g_[sigma, tau]*Physics:-KroneckerDelta[a2, a3]/((-P__1[chi]+P__3[chi])*(-P__1[`~chi`]+P__3[`~chi`])+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)-((1/16)*I)*((-P__1[`~beta`]-P__3[`~beta`]+P__4[`~beta`])*Physics:-g_[`~kappa`, `~tau`]+(P__1[`~kappa`]-P__2[`~kappa`]-P__4[`~kappa`])*Physics:-g_[`~beta`, `~tau`]+Physics:-g_[`~beta`, `~kappa`]*(P__2[`~tau`]+P__3[`~tau`]))*Physics:-LeviCivita[a3, g, h]*((P__1[`~sigma`]+P__4[`~sigma`])*Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~lambda`]+(P__1[`~alpha`]-2*P__4[`~alpha`])*Physics:-g_[`~lambda`, `~sigma`]-2*Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~sigma`]*(P__1[`~lambda`]-(1/2)*P__4[`~lambda`]))*Physics:-LeviCivita[a1, a2, d]*Physics:-g_[sigma, tau]*Physics:-KroneckerDelta[a2, a3]/((-P__1[chi]+P__4[chi])*(-P__1[`~chi`]+P__4[`~chi`])+I*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-epsilon)-((1/16)*I)*(Physics:-KroneckerDelta[g, h]*Physics:-KroneckerDelta[a1, d]*(Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~beta`]*Physics:-g_[`~kappa`, `~lambda`]+Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~kappa`]*Physics:-g_[`~beta`, `~lambda`]-2*Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~lambda`]*Physics:-g_[`~beta`, `~kappa`])+Physics:-KroneckerDelta[d, h]*(Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~beta`]*Physics:-g_[`~kappa`, `~lambda`]-2*Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~kappa`]*Physics:-g_[`~beta`, `~lambda`]+Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~lambda`]*Physics:-g_[`~beta`, `~kappa`])*Physics:-KroneckerDelta[a1, g]-2*(Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~beta`]*Physics:-g_[`~kappa`, `~lambda`]-(1/2)*Physics:-g_[`~beta`, `~kappa`]*Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~lambda`]-(1/2)*Physics:-g_[`~alpha`, `~kappa`]*Physics:-g_[`~beta`, `~lambda`])*Physics:-KroneckerDelta[d, g]*Physics:-KroneckerDelta[a1, h]))*g^2*conjugate(Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-PolarizationVector[B][kappa, h](P__3_))*conjugate(Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-PolarizationVector[B][lambda, a1](P__4_))*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-PolarizationVector[B][alpha, d](P__1_)*Physics:-FeynmanDiagrams:-PolarizationVector[B][beta, g](P__2_)/(Pi^2*(E__1*E__2*E__3*E__4)^(1/2)))


To simplify the repeated indices, us the option simplifytensorindices. To check the indices entering a result like this one use Check ; there are no free indices, and regarding the repeated indices:

Check(Physics[FeynmanDiagrams]:-ProbabilityDensity(4*Pi^2*%mul(n[i], i = 1 .. 2)*abs(F)^2*Dirac(-P__3[`~sigma`]-P__4[`~sigma`]+P__1[`~sigma`]+P__2[`~sigma`])*%mul(dP_[f]^3, f = 1 .. 2), F = (((1/8)*I)*Physics[LeviCivita][a1, a3, h]*((-P__1[`~kappa`]-P__2[`~kappa`]-P__4[`~kappa`])*Physics[g_][`~lambda`, `~tau`]+(P__1[`~lambda`]+P__2[`~lambda`]+P__3[`~lambda`])*Physics[g_][`~kappa`, `~tau`]-Physics[g_][`~kappa`, `~lambda`]*(P__3[`~tau`]-P__4[`~tau`]))*Physics[LeviCivita][a2, d, g]*((P__1[`~beta`]+(1/2)*P__2[`~beta`])*Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~sigma`]+(-(1/2)*P__1[`~sigma`]+(1/2)*P__2[`~sigma`])*Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~beta`]-(1/2)*Physics[g_][`~beta`, `~sigma`]*(P__1[`~alpha`]+2*P__2[`~alpha`]))*Physics[g_][sigma, tau]*Physics[KroneckerDelta][a2, a3]/((-P__1[chi]-P__2[chi])*(-P__1[`~chi`]-P__2[`~chi`])+I*Physics[FeynmanDiagrams]:-epsilon)-((1/16)*I)*((-P__1[`~beta`]+P__3[`~beta`]-P__4[`~beta`])*Physics[g_][`~lambda`, `~tau`]+(P__1[`~lambda`]-P__2[`~lambda`]-P__3[`~lambda`])*Physics[g_][`~beta`, `~tau`]+Physics[g_][`~beta`, `~lambda`]*(P__2[`~tau`]+P__4[`~tau`]))*Physics[LeviCivita][a1, a3, g]*((P__1[`~sigma`]+P__3[`~sigma`])*Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~kappa`]+(-2*P__1[`~kappa`]+P__3[`~kappa`])*Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~sigma`]+Physics[g_][`~kappa`, `~sigma`]*(P__1[`~alpha`]-2*P__3[`~alpha`]))*Physics[LeviCivita][a2, d, h]*Physics[g_][sigma, tau]*Physics[KroneckerDelta][a2, a3]/((-P__1[chi]+P__3[chi])*(-P__1[`~chi`]+P__3[`~chi`])+I*Physics[FeynmanDiagrams]:-epsilon)-((1/16)*I)*((-P__1[`~beta`]-P__3[`~beta`]+P__4[`~beta`])*Physics[g_][`~kappa`, `~tau`]+(P__1[`~kappa`]-P__2[`~kappa`]-P__4[`~kappa`])*Physics[g_][`~beta`, `~tau`]+Physics[g_][`~beta`, `~kappa`]*(P__2[`~tau`]+P__3[`~tau`]))*Physics[LeviCivita][a3, g, h]*((P__1[`~sigma`]+P__4[`~sigma`])*Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~lambda`]+(P__1[`~alpha`]-2*P__4[`~alpha`])*Physics[g_][`~lambda`, `~sigma`]-2*Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~sigma`]*(P__1[`~lambda`]-(1/2)*P__4[`~lambda`]))*Physics[LeviCivita][a1, a2, d]*Physics[g_][sigma, tau]*Physics[KroneckerDelta][a2, a3]/((-P__1[chi]+P__4[chi])*(-P__1[`~chi`]+P__4[`~chi`])+I*Physics[FeynmanDiagrams]:-epsilon)-((1/16)*I)*(Physics[KroneckerDelta][g, h]*Physics[KroneckerDelta][a1, d]*(Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~beta`]*Physics[g_][`~kappa`, `~lambda`]+Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~kappa`]*Physics[g_][`~beta`, `~lambda`]-2*Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~lambda`]*Physics[g_][`~beta`, `~kappa`])+Physics[KroneckerDelta][d, h]*(Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~beta`]*Physics[g_][`~kappa`, `~lambda`]-2*Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~kappa`]*Physics[g_][`~beta`, `~lambda`]+Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~lambda`]*Physics[g_][`~beta`, `~kappa`])*Physics[KroneckerDelta][a1, g]-2*(Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~beta`]*Physics[g_][`~kappa`, `~lambda`]-(1/2)*Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~lambda`]*Physics[g_][`~beta`, `~kappa`]-(1/2)*Physics[g_][`~alpha`, `~kappa`]*Physics[g_][`~beta`, `~lambda`])*Physics[KroneckerDelta][d, g]*Physics[KroneckerDelta][a1, h]))*g^2*conjugate(Physics[FeynmanDiagrams]:-PolarizationVector[B][kappa, h](P__3_))*conjugate(Physics[FeynmanDiagrams]:-PolarizationVector[B][lambda, a1](P__4_))*Physics[FeynmanDiagrams]:-PolarizationVector[B][alpha, d](P__1_)*Physics[FeynmanDiagrams]:-PolarizationVector[B][beta, g](P__2_)/(Pi^2*(E__1*E__2*E__3*E__4)^(1/2))), all)

`The repeated indices per term are: `[{`...`}, {`...`}, `...`]*`, the free indices are: `*{`...`}


[{a1, a2, a3, alpha, beta, chi, d, g, h, kappa, lambda, sigma, tau}], {}


This process can be computed with 1 or more loops, in which case the number of terms increases significantly. As another interesting non-Abelian model, consider the interaction Lagrangian of the electro-weak part of the Standard Model

Coordinates(clear, Z)

`Unaliasing `*{Z}*` previously defined as a system of spacetime coordinates`


Setup(quantumoperators = {W, Z})

[quantumoperators = {A, B, W, Z, phi, psi, psi1}]


Define(W[mu], Z[mu])

`Defined objects with tensor properties`


{A[mu], B[mu, a], Physics:-Dgamma[mu], P__1[mu], P__2[mu], P__3[alpha], P__4[alpha], Physics:-Psigma[mu], W[mu], Z[mu], Physics:-d_[mu], Physics:-g_[mu, nu], p__1[mu], p__2[mu], p__3[mu], p__4[mu], p__5[mu], psi[j], Physics:-LeviCivita[alpha, beta, mu, nu], Physics:-SpaceTimeVector[mu](X), Physics:-SpaceTimeVector[mu](Y)}


CompactDisplay((W, Z)(X))

` W`(X)*`will now be displayed as`*W


` Z`(X)*`will now be displayed as`*Z


F__W[mu, nu] := d_[mu](W[nu](X))-d_[nu](W[mu](X))

Physics:-d_[mu](W[nu](X), [X])-Physics:-d_[nu](W[mu](X), [X])


F__Z[mu, nu] := d_[mu](Z[nu](X))-d_[nu](Z[mu](X))

Physics:-d_[mu](Z[nu](X), [X])-Physics:-d_[nu](Z[mu](X), [X])


L__WZ := I*g*cos(`&theta;__w`)*((Dagger(F__W[mu, nu])*W[mu](X)-Dagger(W[mu](X))*F__W[mu, nu])*Z[nu](X)+W[nu](X)*Dagger(W[mu](X))*F__Z[mu, nu])

I*g*cos(theta__w)*(Physics:-`*`(Physics:-`*`(Physics:-d_[mu](Physics:-Dagger(W[nu](X)), [X])-Physics:-d_[nu](Physics:-Dagger(W[mu](X)), [X]), W[`~mu`](X))-Physics:-`*`(Physics:-Dagger(W[mu](X)), Physics:-d_[`~mu`](W[nu](X), [X])-Physics:-d_[nu](W[`~mu`](X), [X])), Z[`~nu`](X))+Physics:-`*`(W[nu](X), Physics:-Dagger(W[mu](X)), Physics:-d_[`~mu`](Z[`~nu`](X), [X])-Physics:-d_[`~nu`](Z[`~mu`](X), [X])))


This interaction Lagrangian contains six different terms. The S-matrix element for the tree-level process with two incoming and two outgoing W particles is shown in the help page for FeynmanDiagrams .




[1] Bogoliubov, N.N., and Shirkov, D.V. Quantum Fields. Benjamin Cummings, 1982.

[2] Weinberg, S., The Quantum Theory Of Fields. Cambridge University Press, 2005.



Edgardo S. Cheb-Terrab
Physics, Differential Equations and Mathematical Functions, Maplesoft

The ideas here are to allow 3D plotting commands such as plot3d to handle a `size` option similarly to how 2D plotting commands do so, and for the plots:-display command to also handle it for 3D plots.

The size denotes the dimensions of the inlined plotting window, and not the relative lengths of the three axes.

I'd be interested in any new problems introduced with this, eg. export, etc.


# Using ToInert/FromInert
# This might go in an initialzation file.
  if __ver>=18.0 and __ver<=2019.2 then
    if :-has(:-op([5,2,2,2,1],__KK),:-_Inert_PARAM(__NN)) then
      :-print("3D size patch done");
      :-print("3D size patch not appropriate; possibly already done");
    end if;
    :-print(sprintf("3D size patch not appropriate for version %a"),__ver);
  end if;
  :-print("3D size patch failed");
end try:

"3D size patch done"


P := plot3d(sin(x)*y^2, x=-Pi..Pi, y=-1..1, size=[150,150],
            font=[Times,5], labels=["","",""]):

plots:-display(P, size=[300,300], font=[Times,10]);

# inherited from the contourplot3d (the plot3d is unset).
  plots:-contourplot3d(sin(x)*y^2, x=-Pi..Pi, y=-1..1,
                       thickness=3, contours=20, size=[800,800]),
  plot3d(sin(x)*y^2, x=-Pi..Pi, y=-1..1, color="Gray",
         transparency=0.1, style=surface)

# Some options should still act as 2D-plot-specific.
try plot3d(sin(x)*y^2, x=-Pi..Pi, y=-1..1, legend="Q");
    print("Not OK");
if StringTools:-FormatMessage(lastexception[2..-1])
   ="the legend option is not available for 3-D plots"
then print("OK"); else print("Not OK"); error; end if; end try;




If this works fine then it might be a candidate for inclusion in an initialization file, so that it's
automatically available.

I was trying to display a Physics[Vectors] vector name in a 3dplot with an up arrow
on it. I found that this old 2008 trick still works in MAPLE 2018.





# Using MAPLE 2018.2


t:= textplot3d([-1.1,1.1,1,v_]):




# I found this on an old 2008 post
t:= textplot3d([-1.1,1.1,1,typeset(`#mover(mi(` || v ||  `),mo("→"))`)]):




This update fixes the problems inadvertently introduced in Maple 2019.2, namely:

  • Maple failed to run the code in the maple.ini/.mapleinit initialization files when loading existing worksheets containing a restart() command
  • Installing some packages from the MapleCloud was unsuccessful

For anyone who installed the 2019.2 update, installing 2019.2.1 will fix these problems.

If you are at Maple 2019.1 or earlier, installing this update will bring you straight to Maple 2019.2.1.

This update is available through Tools>Check for Updates in Maple, and is also available from our website on the Maple 2019.2.1 download page.

If you are a MapleSim user, please note that these problems do not affect your use of MapleSim. If you use Maple on its own, and if you use Maple command initialization files and/or you need to install a package from the MapleCloud that does not work, please contact Maplesoft Technical Support for assistance.

We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your patience as we worked through this issue.

I'm only just hearing (haven't experienced) about some serious issues with the 2019.2 updates.  I would recommend waiting for Maplesoft to release an emergency 2019.3 fix update - Maplesoft can NOT leave the last update of 2019 in this state.

Splitting PDE parameterized symmetries

and Parameter-continuous symmetry transformations

The determination of symmetries for partial differential equation systems (PDE) is relevant in several contexts, the most obvious of which is of course the determination of the PDE solutions. For instance, generally speaking, the knowledge of a N-dimensional Lie symmetry group can be used to reduce the number of independent variables of PDE by N. So if PDE depends only on N independent variables, that amounts to completely solving it. If only N-1 symmetries are known or can be successfully used then PDE becomes and ODE; etc., all advantageous situations. In Maple, a complete set of symmetry commands, to perform each step of the symmetry approach or several of them in one go, is part of the PDEtools  package.


Besides the dependent and independent variables, PDE frequently depends on some constant parameters, and besides the PDE symmetries for arbitrary values of those parameters, for some particular values of them, PDE transforms into a completely different problem, admitting different symmetries. The question then is: how can you determine those particular values of the parameters and the corresponding different symmetries? That was the underlying subject of a recent question in Mapleprimes. The answer to those questions is relatively simple and yet not entirely obvious for most of us, motivating this post, organized briefly around one example.


To reproduce the input/output below you need Maple 2019 and to have installed the Physics Updates v.449 or higher.


Consider the family of Korteweg-de Vries equation for u(x, t)involving three constant parameters a, b, q. For convenience (simpler input and more readable output) use the diff_table  and declare  commands


U := diff_table(u(x, t))

pde := b*U[]*U[x]+a*U[x]+q*U[x, x, x]+U[t] = 0

b*u(x, t)*(diff(u(x, t), x))+a*(diff(u(x, t), x))+q*(diff(diff(diff(u(x, t), x), x), x))+diff(u(x, t), t) = 0



` u`(x, t)*`will now be displayed as`*u


This pde admits a 4-dimensional symmetry group, whose infinitesimals - for arbitrary values of the parameters a, b, q- are given by

I__1 := Infinitesimals(pde, [u], specialize_Cn = false)

[_xi[x](x, t, u) = (1/3)*_C1*x+_C3*t+_C4, _xi[t](x, t, u) = _C1*t+_C2, _eta[u](x, t, u) = (1/3)*((-2*b*u-2*a)*_C1+3*_C3)/b]


Looking at pde (1) as a nonlinear problem in u, a, b and q, it splits into four cases for some particular values of the parameter:

pde__cases := casesplit(b*u(x, t)*(diff(u(x, t), x))+a*(diff(u(x, t), x))+q*(diff(diff(diff(u(x, t), x), x), x))+diff(u(x, t), t) = 0, parameters = {a, b, q}, caseplot)

`========= Pivots Legend =========`


p1 = q


p2 = b*u(x, t)+a


p3 = b



`casesplit/ans`([diff(diff(diff(u(x, t), x), x), x) = -(b*u(x, t)*(diff(u(x, t), x))+a*(diff(u(x, t), x))+diff(u(x, t), t))/q], [q <> 0]), `casesplit/ans`([diff(u(x, t), x) = -(diff(u(x, t), t))/(b*u(x, t)+a), q = 0], [b*u(x, t)+a <> 0]), `casesplit/ans`([u(x, t) = -a/b, q = 0], [b <> 0]), `casesplit/ans`([diff(u(x, t), t) = 0, a = 0, b = 0, q = 0], [])


The legend above indicates the pivots and the tree of cases, depending on whether each pivot is equal or different from 0. At the end there is the algebraic sequence of cases. The first case is the general case, for which the symmetry infinitesimals were computed as I__1 above, but clearly the other three cases admit more general symmetries. Consider for instance the second case, pass the ignoreparameterizingequations to ignore the parameterizing equation q = 0, and you get

I__2 := Infinitesimals(pde__cases[2], ignore)

`* Partial match of  'ignore' against keyword 'ignoreparameterizingequations'`


[_xi[x](x, t, u) = _F3(x, t, u), _xi[t](x, t, u) = Intat(((b*u+a)*(D[1](_F3))(_a, ((b*u+a)*t-x+_a)/(b*u+a), u)-_F1(u, ((b*u+a)*t-x)/(b*u+a))*b+(D[2](_F3))(_a, ((b*u+a)*t-x+_a)/(b*u+a), u))/(b*u+a)^2, _a = x)+_F2(u, ((b*u+a)*t-x)/(b*u+a)), _eta[u](x, t, u) = _F1(u, ((b*u+a)*t-x)/(b*u+a))]


These infinitesimals are indeed much more general than I__1, in fact so general that (5) is almost unreadable ... Specialize the three arbitrary functions into something "easy" just to be able follow - e.g. take _F1 to be just the + operator, _F2 the * operator and _F3 = 1

eval(I__2, [_F1 = `+`, _F2 = `*`, _F3 = 1])

[_xi[x](x, t, u) = 1, _xi[t](x, t, u) = Intat(-(u+((b*u+a)*t-x)/(b*u+a))*b/(b*u+a)^2, _a = x)+u*((b*u+a)*t-x)/(b*u+a), _eta[u](x, t, u) = u+((b*u+a)*t-x)/(b*u+a)]


simplify(value([_xi[x](x, t, u) = 1, _xi[t](x, t, u) = Intat(-(u+((b*u+a)*t-x)/(b*u+a))*b/(b*u+a)^2, _a = x)+u*((b*u+a)*t-x)/(b*u+a), _eta[u](x, t, u) = u+((b*u+a)*t-x)/(b*u+a)]))

[_xi[x](x, t, u) = 1, _xi[t](x, t, u) = (b^3*t*u^4+((3*a*t-x)*u^3-u^2*x-t*x*u)*b^2+((3*a^2*t-2*a*x)*u^2-a*u*x-a*t*x+x^2)*b+a^2*u*(a*t-x))/(b*u+a)^3, _eta[u](x, t, u) = (b*u^2+(b*t+a)*u+a*t-x)/(b*u+a)]


This symmetry is of course completely different than [_xi[x](x, t, u) = (1/3)*_C1*x+_C3*t+_C4, _xi[t](x, t, u) = _C1*t+_C2, _eta[u](x, t, u) = ((-2*b*u-2*a)*_C1+3*_C3)/(3*b)]computed for the general case.


The symmetry (7) can be verified against pde__cases[2] or directly against pde after substituting q = 0.

[_xi[x](x, t, u) = (1/3)*_C1*x+_C3*t+_C4, _xi[t](x, t, u) = _C1*t+_C2, _eta[u](x, t, u) = (1/3)*((-2*b*u-2*a)*_C1+3*_C3)/b]


SymmetryTest([_xi[x](x, t, u) = 1, _xi[t](x, t, u) = (b^3*t*u^4+((3*a*t-x)*u^3-u^2*x-t*x*u)*b^2+((3*a^2*t-2*a*x)*u^2-a*u*x-a*t*x+x^2)*b+a^2*u*(a*t-x))/(b*u+a)^3, _eta[u](x, t, u) = (b*u^2+(b*t+a)*u+a*t-x)/(b*u+a)], pde__cases[2], ignore)

`* Partial match of  'ignore' against keyword 'ignoreparameterizingequations'`




SymmetryTest([_xi[x](x, t, u) = 1, _xi[t](x, t, u) = (b^3*t*u^4+((3*a*t-x)*u^3-u^2*x-t*x*u)*b^2+((3*a^2*t-2*a*x)*u^2-a*u*x-a*t*x+x^2)*b+a^2*u*(a*t-x))/(b*u+a)^3, _eta[u](x, t, u) = (b*u^2+(b*t+a)*u+a*t-x)/(b*u+a)], subs(q = 0, pde))



Summarizing: "to split PDE symmetries into cases according to the values of the PDE parameters, split the PDE into cases with respect to these parameters (command PDEtools:-casesplit ) then compute the symmetries for each case"


Parameter continuous symmetry transformations


A different, however closely related question, is whether pde admits "symmetries with respect to the parameters a, b and q", so whether exists continuous transformations of the parameters a, b and q that leave pde invariant in form.


Beforehand, note that since the parameters are constants with regards to the dependent and independent variables (here u(x, t)), such continuous symmetry transformations cannot be used directly to compute a solution for pde. They can, however, be used to reduce the number of parameters. And in some contexts, that is exactly what we need, for example to entirely remove the splitting into cases due to their presence, or to proceed applying a solving method that is valid only when there are no parameters (frequently the case when computing exact solutions to "PDE & Boundary Conditions").


To compute such "continuous symmetry transformations of the parameters" that leave pde invariant one can always think of these parameters as "additional independent variables of pde". In terms of formulation, that amounts to replacing the dependency in the dependent variable, i.e. replace u(x, t) by u(x, t, a, b, q)


pde__xtabq := subs((x, t) = (x, t, a, b, q), pde)

b*u(x, t, a, b, q)*(diff(u(x, t, a, b, q), x))+a*(diff(u(x, t, a, b, q), x))+q*(diff(diff(diff(u(x, t, a, b, q), x), x), x))+diff(u(x, t, a, b, q), t) = 0


Compute now the infinitesimals: note there are now three additional ones, related to continuous transformations of "a,b,"and q - for readability, avoid displaying the redundant functionality x, t, a, b, q, u on the left-hand sides of these infinitesimals

Infinitesimals(pde__xtabq, displayfunctionality = false)

[_xi[x] = (1/3)*(_F4(a, b, q)*q+_F3(a, b, q))*x/q+_F6(a, b, q)*t+_F7(a, b, q), _xi[t] = _F4(a, b, q)*t+_F5(a, b, q), _xi[a] = _F1(a, b, q), _xi[b] = _F2(a, b, q), _xi[q] = _F3(a, b, q), _eta[u] = (1/3)*((b*u+a)*_F3(a, b, q)-2*((b*u+a)*_F4(a, b, q)+(3/2)*u*_F2(a, b, q)+(3/2)*_F1(a, b, q)-(3/2)*_F6(a, b, q))*q)/(b*q)]


This result is more general than what is convenient for algebraic manipulations, so specialize the seven arbitrary functions of a, b, q and keep only the first symmetry that result from this specialization: that suffices to illustrate the removal of any of the three parameters a, b, or q

S := Library:-Specialize_Fn([_xi[x] = (1/3)*(_F4(a, b, q)*q+_F3(a, b, q))*x/q+_F6(a, b, q)*t+_F7(a, b, q), _xi[t] = _F4(a, b, q)*t+_F5(a, b, q), _xi[a] = _F1(a, b, q), _xi[b] = _F2(a, b, q), _xi[q] = _F3(a, b, q), _eta[u] = (1/3)*((b*u+a)*_F3(a, b, q)-2*((b*u+a)*_F4(a, b, q)+(3/2)*u*_F2(a, b, q)+(3/2)*_F1(a, b, q)-(3/2)*_F6(a, b, q))*q)/(b*q)])[1 .. 1]

[_xi[x] = 0, _xi[t] = 0, _xi[a] = 1, _xi[b] = 0, _xi[q] = 0, _eta[u] = -1/b]


To remove the parameters, as it is standard in the symmetry approach, compute a transformation to canonical coordinates, with respect to the parameter a. That means a transformation that changes the list of infinitesimals, or likewise its infinitesimal generator representation,

InfinitesimalGenerator(S, [u(x, t, a, b, q)])

proc (f) options operator, arrow; diff(f, a)-(diff(f, u))/b end proc


into [_xi[x] = 0, _xi[t] = 0, _xi[a] = 1, _xi[b] = 0, _xi[q] = 0, _eta[u] = 0] or its equivalent generator representation  proc (f) options operator, arrow; diff(f, a) end proc

That same transformation, when applied to pde__xtabq, entirely removes the parameter a.

The transformation is computed using CanonicalCoordinates and the last argument indicates the "independent variable" (in our case a parameter) that the transformation should remove. We choose to remove a

CanonicalCoordinates(S, [u(x, t, a, b, q)], [upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi)], a)

{alpha = a, beta = b, chi = q, tau = t, xi = x, upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi) = (b*u(x, t, a, b, q)+a)/b}


declare({alpha = a, beta = b, chi = q, tau = t, xi = x, upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi) = (b*u(x, t, a, b, q)+a)/b})

` u`(x, t, a, b, q)*`will now be displayed as`*u


` upsilon`(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi)*`will now be displayed as`*upsilon


Invert this transformation in order to apply it

solve({alpha = a, beta = b, chi = q, tau = t, xi = x, upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi) = (b*u(x, t, a, b, q)+a)/b}, {a, b, q, t, x, u(x, t, a, b, q)})

{a = alpha, b = beta, q = chi, t = tau, x = xi, u(x, t, a, b, q) = (upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi)*beta-alpha)/beta}


The next step is not necessary, but just to understand how all this works, verify its action over the infinitesimal generator proc (f) options operator, arrow; diff(f, a)-(diff(f, u))/b end proc

ChangeSymmetry({a = alpha, b = beta, q = chi, t = tau, x = xi, u(x, t, a, b, q) = (upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi)*beta-alpha)/beta}, proc (f) options operator, arrow; diff(f, a)-(diff(f, u))/b end proc, [upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi), xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi])

proc (f) options operator, arrow; diff(f, alpha) end proc


Now that we see the transformation (17) is the one we want, just use it to change variables in pde__xtabq

PDEtools:-dchange({a = alpha, b = beta, q = chi, t = tau, x = xi, u(x, t, a, b, q) = (upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi)*beta-alpha)/beta}, pde__xtabq, [upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi), xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi], simplify)

upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi)*(diff(upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi), xi))*beta+chi*(diff(diff(diff(upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi), xi), xi), xi))+diff(upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi), tau) = 0


As expected, this result depends only on two parameters, beta, and chi, and the one equivalent to a (that is alpha, see the transformation used (17)), is not present anymore.

To remove b or q we use the same steps, (15), (17) and (19), just changing the parameter to be removed, indicated as the last argument  in the call to CanonicalCoordinates . For example, to eliminate b (represented in the new variables by beta), input

CanonicalCoordinates(S, [u(x, t, a, b, q)], [upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi)], b)

{alpha = b, beta = a, chi = q, tau = t, xi = x, upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi) = (b*u(x, t, a, b, q)+a)/b}


solve({alpha = b, beta = a, chi = q, tau = t, xi = x, upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi) = (b*u(x, t, a, b, q)+a)/b}, {a, b, q, t, x, u(x, t, a, b, q)})

{a = beta, b = alpha, q = chi, t = tau, x = xi, u(x, t, a, b, q) = (upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi)*alpha-beta)/alpha}


PDEtools:-dchange({a = beta, b = alpha, q = chi, t = tau, x = xi, u(x, t, a, b, q) = (upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi)*alpha-beta)/alpha}, pde__xtabq, [upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi), xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi], simplify)

upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi)*(diff(upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi), xi))*alpha+chi*(diff(diff(diff(upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi), xi), xi), xi))+diff(upsilon(xi, tau, alpha, beta, chi), tau) = 0


and as expected this result does not contain "beta. "To remove a second parameter, the whole cycle is repeated starting with computing infinitesimals, for instance for (22). Finally, the case of function parameters is treated analogously, by considering the function parameters as additional dependent variables instead of independent ones.



Download How_to_split_symmetries_into_cases_(II).mw

Edgardo S. Cheb-Terrab
Physics, Differential Equations and Mathematical Functions, Maplesoft

Integral Transforms (revamped) and PDEs


Integral transforms, implemented in Maple as the inttrans  package, are special integrals that appear frequently in mathematical-physics and that have remarkable properties. One of the main uses of integral transforms is for the computation of exact solutions to ordinary and partial differential equations with initial/boundary conditions. In Maple, that functionality is implemented in dsolve/inttrans  and in pdsolve/boundary conditions .


During the last months, we have been working heavily on several aspects of these integral transform functions and this post is about that. This is work in progress, in collaboration with Katherina von Bulow


The integral transforms are represented by the commands of the inttrans  package:


[addtable, fourier, fouriercos, fouriersin, hankel, hilbert, invfourier, invhilbert, invlaplace, invmellin, laplace, mellin, savetable, setup]


Three of these commands, addtable, savetable, and setup (this one is new, only present after installing the Physics Updates) are "administrative" commands while the others are computational representations for integrals. For example,

FunctionAdvisor(integral_form, fourier)

[fourier(a, b, z) = Int(a/exp(I*b*z), b = -infinity .. infinity), MathematicalFunctions:-`with no restrictions on `(a, b, z)]


FunctionAdvisor(integral_form, mellin)

[mellin(a, b, z) = Int(a*b^(z-1), b = 0 .. infinity), MathematicalFunctions:-`with no restrictions on `(a, b, z)]


For all the integral transform commands, the first argument is the integrand, the second one is the dummy integration variable of a definite integral and the third one is the evaluation point. (also called transform variable). The integral representation is also visible using the convert network

laplace(f(t), t, s); % = convert(%, Int)

laplace(f(t), t, s) = Int(f(t)*exp(-s*t), t = 0 .. infinity)


Having in mind the applications of these integral transforms to compute integrals and exact solutions to PDE with boundary conditions, five different aspects of these transforms received further development:


Compute Derivatives: Yes or No


Numerical Evaluation


Two Hankel Transform Definitions


More integral transform results


Mellin and Hankel transform solutions for Partial Differential Equations with boundary conditions

The project includes having all these tranforms available at user level (not ready), say as FourierTransform for inttrans:-fourier, so that we don't need to input with(inttrans) anymore. Related to these changes we also intend to have Heaviside(0) not return undefined anymore, and return itself instead, unevaluated, so that one can set its value according to the problem/preferred convention (typically 0, 1/2 or 1) and have all the Maple library following that choice.

The material presented in the following sections is reproducible already in Maple 2019 by installing the latest Physics Updates (v.435 or higher),

Compute derivatives: Yes or No.


For historical reasons, previous implementations of these integral transform commands did not follow a standard paradigm of computer algebra: "Given a function f(x), the input diff(f(x), x) should return the derivative of f(x)". The implementation instead worked in the opposite direction: if you were to input the result of the derivative, you would receive the derivative representation. For example, to the input laplace(-t*f(t), t, s) you would receive d*laplace(f(t), t, s)/ds. This is particularly useful for the purpose of using integral transforms to solve differential equations but it is counter-intuitive and misleading; Maple knows the differentiation rule of these functions, but that rule was not evident anywhere. It was not clear how to compute the derivative (unless you knew the result in advance).


To solve this issue, a new command, setup, has been added to the package, so that you can set "whether or not" to compute derivatives, and the default has been changed to computederivatives = true while the old behavior is obtained only if you input setup(computederivatives = false). For example, after having installed the Physics Updates,


`The "Physics Updates" version in the MapleCloud is 435 and is the same as the version installed in this computer, created 2019, October 1, 12:46 hours, found in the directory /Users/ecterrab/maple/toolbox/2019/Physics Updates/lib/`


the current settings can be queried via


computederivatives = true


and so differentiating returns the derivative computed

(%diff = diff)(laplace(f(t), t, s), s)

%diff(laplace(f(t), t, s), s) = -laplace(f(t)*t, t, s)


while changing this setting to work as in previous releases you have this computation reversed: you input the output (1.3) and you get the corresponding input

setup(computederivatives = false)

computederivatives = false


%diff(laplace(f(t), t, s), s) = -laplace(t*f(t), t, s)

%diff(laplace(f(t), t, s), s) = diff(laplace(f(t), t, s), s)


Reset the value of computederivatives

setup(computederivatives = true)

computederivatives = true


%diff(laplace(f(t), t, s), s) = -laplace(t*f(t), t, s)

%diff(laplace(f(t), t, s), s) = -laplace(f(t)*t, t, s)


In summary: by default, derivatives of integral transforms are now computed; if you need to work with these derivatives as in  previous releases, you can input setup(computederivatives = false). This setting can be changed any time you want within one and the same Maple session, and changing it does not have any impact on the performance of intsolve, dsolve and pdsolve to solve differential equations using integral transforms.


Numerical Evaluation


In previous releases, integral transforms had no numerical evaluation implemented. This is in the process of changing. So, for example, to numerically evaluate the inverse laplace transform ( invlaplace  command), three different algorithms have been implemented: Gaver-Stehfest, Talbot and Euler, following the presentation by Abate and Whitt, "Unified Framework for Numerically Inverting Laplace Transforms", INFORMS Journal on Computing 18(4), pp. 408–421, 2006.


For example, consider the exact solution to this partial differential equation subject to initial and boundary conditions

pde := diff(u(x, t), x) = 4*(diff(u(x, t), t, t))

iv := u(x, 0) = 0, u(0, t) = 1


Note that these two conditions are not entirely compatible: the solution returned cannot be valid for x = 0 and t = 0 simultaneously. However, a solution discarding that point does exist and is given by

sol := pdsolve([pde, iv])

u(x, t) = -invlaplace(exp(-(1/2)*s^(1/2)*t)/s, s, x)+1


Verifying the solution, one condition remains to be tested

pdetest(sol, [pde, iv])

[0, 0, -invlaplace(exp(-(1/2)*s^(1/2)*t)/s, s, 0)]


Since we now have numerical evaluation rules, we can test that what looks different from 0 in the above is actually 0.

zero := [0, 0, -invlaplace(exp(-(1/2)*s^(1/2)*t)/s, s, 0)][-1]

-invlaplace(exp(-(1/2)*s^(1/2)*t)/s, s, 0)


Add a small number to the initial value of t to skip the point t = 0

plot(zero, t = 0+10^(-10) .. 1)


The default method used is the method of Euler sums and the numerical evaluation is performed as usual using the evalf command. For example, consider

F := sin(sqrt(2*t))


The Laplace transform of F is given by

LT := laplace(F, t, s)



and the inverse Laplace transform of LT in inert form is

ILT := %invlaplace(LT, s, t)

%invlaplace((1/2)*2^(1/2)*Pi^(1/2)*exp(-(1/2)/s)/s^(3/2), s, t)


At t = 1 we have

eval(ILT, t = 1)

%invlaplace((1/2)*2^(1/2)*Pi^(1/2)*exp(-(1/2)/s)/s^(3/2), s, 1)


evalf(%invlaplace((1/2)*2^(1/2)*Pi^(1/2)*exp(-(1/2)/s)/s^(3/2), s, 1))



This result is consistent with the one we get if we first compute the exact form of the inverse Laplace transform at t = 1:

%invlaplace((1/2)*2^(1/2)*Pi^(1/2)*exp(-(1/2)/s)/s^(3/2), s, 1) = value(%invlaplace((1/2)*2^(1/2)*Pi^(1/2)*exp(-(1/2)/s)/s^(3/2), s, 1))

%invlaplace((1/2)*2^(1/2)*Pi^(1/2)*exp(-(1/2)/s)/s^(3/2), s, 1) = sin(2^(1/2))


evalf(%invlaplace((1/2)*2^(1/2)*Pi^(1/2)*exp(-(1/2)/s)/s^(3/2), s, 1) = sin(2^(1/2)))

.9877659460 = .9877659459


In addition to the standard use of evalf to numerically evaluate inverse Laplace transforms, one can invoke each of the three different methods implemented using the MathematicalFunctions:-Evalf  command

with(MathematicalFunctions, Evalf)



Evalf(%invlaplace((1/2)*2^(1/2)*Pi^(1/2)*exp(-(1/2)/s)/s^(3/2), s, 1), method = Talbot)



MF:-Evalf(%invlaplace((1/2)*2^(1/2)*Pi^(1/2)*exp(-(1/2)/s)/s^(3/2), s, 1), method = GaverStehfest)



MF:-Evalf(%invlaplace((1/2)*2^(1/2)*Pi^(1/2)*exp(-(1/2)/s)/s^(3/2), s, 1), method = Euler)



Regarding the method we use by default: from a numerical experiment with varied problems we have concluded that our implementation of the Euler (sums) method is faster and more accurate than the other two.


Two Hankel transform definitions


In previous Maple releases, the definition of the Hankel transform was given by

hankel(f(t), t, s, nu) = Int(f(t)*sqrt(s*t)*BesselJ(nu, s*t), t = 0 .. infinity)

where BesselJ(nu, s*t) is the BesselJ(nu, s*t) function. This definition, sometimes called alternative definition of the Hankel transform, has the inconvenience of the square root sqrt(s*t) in the integrand, complicating the form of the hankel transform for the Laplacian in cylindrical coordinates. On the other hand, the definition more frequently used in the literature is

 hankel(f(t), t, s, nu) = Int(f(t)*t*BesselJ(nu, s*t), t = 0 .. infinity)

With it, the Hankel transform of diff(u(r, t), r, r)+(diff(u(r, t), r))/r+diff(u(r, t), t, t) is given by the simple ODE form d^2*`&Hopf;`(k, t)/dt^2-k^2*`&Hopf;`(k, t). Not just this transform but several other ones acquire a simpler form with the definition that does not have a square root in the integrand.

So the idea is to align Maple with this simpler definition, while keeping the previous definition as an alternative. Hence, by default, when you load the inttrans package, the new definition in use for the Hankel transform is

hankel(f(t), t, s, nu); % = convert(%, Int)

hankel(f(t), t, s, nu) = Int(f(t)*t*BesselJ(nu, s*t), t = 0 .. infinity)


You can change this default so that Maple works with the alternative definition as in previous releases.  For that purpose, use the new inttrans:-setup command (which you can also use to query about the definition in use at any moment):


alternativehankeldefinition = false


This change in definition is automatically taken into account by other parts of the Maple library using the Hankel transform. For example, the differentiation rule with the new definition is

(%diff = diff)(hankel(f(t), t, z, nu), z)

%diff(hankel(f(t), t, z, nu), z) = -hankel(t*f(t), t, z, nu+1)+nu*hankel(f(t), t, z, nu)/z


This differentiation rule resembles (is connected to) the differentiation rule for BesselJ, and this is another advantage of the new definition.

(%diff = diff)(BesselJ(nu, z), z)

%diff(BesselJ(nu, z), z) = -BesselJ(nu+1, z)+nu*BesselJ(nu, z)/z


Furthermore, several transforms have acquired a simpler form, as for example: