Advanced Search

Maple 2025 Questions and Posts

These are Posts and Questions associated with the product, Maple 2025
View unanswered posts
Maple 2025 Questions and Posts Feed

How to make font larger in debugger? Linux 2025.1...

Asked by: nm 11378
Yesterday at 8:22 AM
0  2

The font size in the debugger is very small.

Even if I increase the zoom in the worksheet before starting the debugger, this has no effect on the debugger.

Is there an option to use larger font for the debugger? Here is an example, this is worksheet after making the zoom 145%

 

And here is the debugger window.  side by side with the worksheet. Notice the font in debugger do not change.

 

It looks even smaller on the desktop, I am using large monitor also. 

Is there separate setting to change font size for debugger?

Maple 2025.1 on Linux KDE plasma, Cauchy OS (Arch based)

Working with squared root in Maple sometimes make ...

Asked by: lemelinm 1540
sqrt
August 26 2025
1  2

The_Bohrs_Model_-_MaplePrimes.mw

Look at the equation (11) in the Maple's document. I would like to force Maple to let the variable "r" inside the squared root so to get the equation (12). Any idea of doing that?  Thank you in advance for your help.

rationalize the given function w const...

Asked by: amrita901 10
syntax simplification rationalize
August 26 2025
2  2

(2500iw/(1+5iw) )+(200iw/1-10iw)+5 rationalize and simplify

Why Maple 2025.1 can't solve this first order ...

Asked by: nm 11378
ode dsolve differential-equations
August 25 2025
1  2

I was surprised that Maple can't solve this first order ode which is exact ode.

I solved by hand and Maple says my solution is correct.

Any one can find why Maple failed to solve this and if older versions can solve it? Also tried implicit option, but that did not help.

> 

interface(version);

`Standard Worksheet Interface, Maple 2025.1, Linux, June 12 2025 Build ID 1932578`

> 

SupportTools:-Version();

`The Customer Support Updates version in the MapleCloud is 29 and is the same as the version installed in this computer, created June 23, 2025, 10:25 hours Eastern Time.`

> 

restart;
> 

ode:=diff(y(x),x) = (2*sin(2*x)-tan(y(x)))/x/sec(y(x))^2;

diff(y(x), x) = (2*sin(2*x)-tan(y(x)))/(x*sec(y(x))^2)

> 

sol:=dsolve(ode);

> 

mysol:=cos(2*x)+x*tan(y(x))=c__1;

cos(2*x)+x*tan(y(x)) = c__1

> 

odetest(mysol,ode);

0

 

 

Download maple_solving_exact_ode_august_25_2025.mw

Why does RealDomain:-solve return an extraneous so...

Asked by: sursumCorda 1254
solve realdomain
August 24 2025
2  1

As we can see, RealDomain:-solve gives an incorrect solution to the following system: 

> 

restart;
> 

sys := `~`[diff](sqrt(2*a^2-8*a+10)+sqrt(b^2-6*b+10)+sqrt(2*a^2-2*a*b+b^2), [a, b]):
> 

RealDomain:-solve(`~`[`=`](sys, 0), {a, b})

{a = 5/3, b = 5/2}, {a = a, b = 2*a/(a-1)}

 (1)
> 

plot(eval(sys, {max(2*5^(1/2), (2*a^2-8*a+10)^(1/2)+2^(1/2)*((a^2-4*a+5)/(a-1)^2)^(1/2)+2^(1/2)*(a^2*(a^2-4*a+5)/(a-1)^2)^(1/2)), min(2*5^(1/2), (2*a^2-8*a+10)^(1/2)+2^(1/2)*((a^2-4*a+5)/(a-1)^2)^(1/2)+2^(1/2)*(a^2*(a^2-4*a+5)/(a-1)^2)^(1/2))}[-1]), a = -infinity .. infinity)

 
> 

extrema(sqrt(2*a^2-8*a+10)+sqrt(b^2-6*b+10)+sqrt(2*a^2-2*a*b+b^2), {}, {a, b})

{max(2*5^(1/2), (2*a^2-8*a+10)^(1/2)+2^(1/2)*((a^2-4*a+5)/(a-1)^2)^(1/2)+2^(1/2)*(a^2*(a^2-4*a+5)/(a-1)^2)^(1/2)), min(2*5^(1/2), (2*a^2-8*a+10)^(1/2)+2^(1/2)*((a^2-4*a+5)/(a-1)^2)^(1/2)+2^(1/2)*(a^2*(a^2-4*a+5)/(a-1)^2)^(1/2))}

 (2)

Download solve_returns_an_unsatisfiable_real_solution.mw

This appears to be a bug; is it possible to fix it? 
Text: 

sys := diff~(sqrt(2*a^2 - 8*a + 10) + sqrt(b^2 - 6*b + 10) + sqrt(2*a^2 - 2*a*b + b^2), [a, b]):
RealDomain:-solve(sys =~ 0, {a, b});

Should not dsolve give implicit solution if unable...

Asked by: nm 11378
ode dsolve implicit
August 22 2025
1  4

THis is problem from textbook. Maple do not give solution. 

But when asked for implicit solution, it gives one.  Should it not have done this automatically?

> 

interface(version);

`Standard Worksheet Interface, Maple 2025.1, Linux, June 12 2025 Build ID 1932578`

> 

ode:=y(x)*diff(y(x),x) = a;
ic:=y(0) = b;
sol:=dsolve([ode,ic]);

y(x)*(diff(y(x), x)) = a

y(0) = b

> 

sol:=dsolve([ode,ic],'implicit')

-2*a*x+y(x)^2-b^2 = 0

 

 

Download why_no_solution_maple_2025_1.mw

We see now there are two solutions for y(x), since quadratic.

So why dsolve do not solve this and at least give implicit solution automatically? Should this be reported as defect?

why Maple simplifies 1+sin(x)^2 to 2-cos(x)^2 ?...

Asked by: nm 11378
simplify simplification trig
August 20 2025
2  2

Any idea why Maple simplifies 1+sin(x)^2 to 2-cos(x)^2?  Leaf count is larger also.

> 

interface(version);

`Standard Worksheet Interface, Maple 2025.1, Linux, June 12 2025 Build ID 1932578`

> 

e1:=1+sin(x)^2;

1+sin(x)^2

> 

e2:=simplify(e1)

-cos(x)^2+2

> 

MmaTranslator:-Mma:-LeafCount(e1)

6

> 

MmaTranslator:-Mma:-LeafCount(e2)

8

 

 

Download strange_simplification_august_20_2025.mw

bug report: int() gives Error, (in tools/eval_foo...

Asked by: nm 11378
integration int indefinite-integration
August 20 2025
1  1

Attached worksheet

> 

interface(version);

`Standard Worksheet Interface, Maple 2025.1, Linux, June 12 2025 Build ID 1932578`

> 

SupportTools:-Version();

`The Customer Support Updates version in the MapleCloud is 29 and is the same as the version installed in this computer, created June 23, 2025, 10:25 hours Eastern Time.`

> 

Physics:-Version();

`The "Physics Updates" version in the MapleCloud is 1877 and is the same as the version installed in this computer, created 2025, July 11, 19:24 hours Pacific Time.`

> 

restart;
> 

integrand:=1/2/x^(9/2)*2^(1/2)*Pi^(1/2)/(1/x)^(1/2)*cos(1/x);

(1/2)*2^(1/2)*Pi^(1/2)*cos(1/x)/(x^(9/2)*(1/x)^(1/2))

> 

int(integrand,x)

Error, (in tools/eval_foo/do) too many levels of recursion

 

 

Download internal_error_on_int_august_20_2025_maple_2025_1.mw

Update

fyi, Here is yet another int() error Error, (in type/trig) too many levels of recursion in Maple 2025.1. (also reported to Maplesoft).

> 

interface(version);

`Standard Worksheet Interface, Maple 2025.1, Linux, June 12 2025 Build ID 1932578`

> 

SupportTools:-Version();

`The Customer Support Updates version in the MapleCloud is 29 and is the same as the version installed in this computer, created June 23, 2025, 10:25 hours Eastern Time.`

> 

Physics:-Version();

`The "Physics Updates" version in the MapleCloud is 1877 and is the same as the version installed in this computer, created 2025, July 11, 19:24 hours Pacific Time.`

> 

restart;
> 

integrand:=(a+a*sin(f*x+e))^(3/2)*(A+B*sin(f*x+e))*(c-c*sin(f*x+e))^(5/2);

(a+a*sin(f*x+e))^(3/2)*(A+B*sin(f*x+e))*(c-c*sin(f*x+e))^(5/2)

> 

int(integrand,x)

Error, (in type/trig) too many levels of recursion

> 

int(integrand,x)

(1/6)*(-c*(-1+sin(f*x+e)))^(1/2)*((3/4)*B*sin(f*x+e)*tan(f*x+e)*cos(2*f*x+2*e)+A*sin(2*f*x+2*e)-(3/8)*tan(f*x+e)*(((4/5)*B*sin(f*x+e)+A)*sin(3*f*x+3*e)+(44/15)*B*sin(f*x+e)^2+(5*A-6*B)*sin(f*x+e)-(32/3)*A))*a*c^2*(a*(1+sin(f*x+e)))^(1/2)/f

> 

restart;
> 

integrand:=(a+a*sin(f*x+e))^(3/2)*(A+B*sin(f*x+e))*(c-c*sin(f*x+e))^(5/2);
int(integrand,x)

(a+a*sin(f*x+e))^(3/2)*(A+B*sin(f*x+e))*(c-c*sin(f*x+e))^(5/2)

Error, (in type/trig) too many levels of recursion

 

 

Download another_int_error_too_many_levels_maple_2025_1.mw

Where Has The "Stop Execution" Symbol Gone?...

Asked by: WD0HHU 40
interrupt gui ribbon
August 18 2025
0  6

I can't seem to find the "Stop Execution" symbol with the new Maple 2025.1 GUI.  Does anyone know where it went?

Does OpenMaple work in the Free Trial?...

Asked by: benshaw2 5
openmaple ubuntu
August 18 2025
1  0

I installed a free trial of Maple 2025, but I can't seem to get the (simple) sample test.java script to run using OpenMaple. It compiles fine, but when I try to run it I get a Segmentation Fault error. I've ensured that the environmental variables, as described in the installation documentation, are given properly. The documentation/example in the installation refers to an old version of Maple, so I wondered if perhaps the free trial version does not have all of the updated components? I was hoping to test my project compatibility with OpenMaple before purchasing Maple.

My OS is Ubuntu 24.04, and I'm using Java 21. It would be nice to get everything running in IntelliJ eventually, but for now even trying to run in the terminal is problematic.

Maple 2025: A challenge for educators

by: erik10 791 Maple 2025
interface windows gui
August 16 2025
4  1

This post is written by a mathematics teacher who usually views Maple’s new initiatives from an educational perspective, and I’m well aware that others may see things differently. A single user might be delighted by a new feature that fits their personal workflow. An advanced user might not care if something requires a workaround.

There are also many preferences when it comes to how the interface should look. I often consider whether something will work well for our high school as a whole. We have students who are not very mathematically or scientifically inclined, and others who are. That’s why user-friendliness is essential. Some packages have been developed to make things easier for students. We try to avoid too many workarounds, since these often create problems for them.

Now, on to Maple 2025’s new interface:

When Microsoft introduced tabs and ribbons instead of menus and toolbars in Word many years ago, I personally thought it was a good idea. I can imagine it working well in Maple too — especially if the different elements are placed logically on the tabs, and frequently used functions are easy to access.

However, I just returned from summer vacation, ready for a new school year, only to discover something surprising: the Windows version comes with the new ribbon interface, while the Mac version still has the old one! For any teacher, this is a nightmare scenario: teaching a class where the Windows and Mac interfaces look completely different. Has Maplesoft ended up caught between two chairs here?

I’ve heard that a Mac version with tabs and ribbons is under development. But since it’s not ready yet, we can’t use it. On Windows, I also noticed a strange extra application called “Maple 2025 Screen Readers”. If you open it directly, you get an odd mix of modern 2D notation and old 1D Maple notation, which is simply unacceptable. If you instead click “Screen Reader Mode” in the top-right corner, it looks more normal. But does that mean it’s fully functional? If so, we might be able to combine this with the Mac version that still uses the old interface — and then switch next year to both Windows and Mac with tabs and ribbons. Still, I must say that Maplesoft is providing far too little information on this! Around 75% of our students use Macs, while only 25% use Windows.

Another issue: When saving a Maple file on a Windows computer, you’re forced into Maple’s own “Save As” window. I’ve previously suggested that it should instead open directly in Windows’ native File Explorer, which is far more powerful. In File Explorer, you can quickly use Quick Access shortcuts to save the file in the right folder. In Maple’s “Save As” window, however, it often takes 6–7 extra clicks to reach the desired location. For students who aren’t very tech-savvy, navigating through a deep folder tree can be a real challenge. Why doesn’t Maplesoft just use Windows’ own File Explorer, which students are already familiar with? Most other programs do. Perhaps someone can explain why Maplesoft insists on keeping their own limited “Save As” dialog.

Finally: I do believe that tabs and ribbons can be a good solution, but there’s still work to be done in placing items on appropriate tabs. For example, although I personally use the F5 keyboard shortcut to switch between Text, Non-executable Math, and Math mode, I know many students prefer to click on these options in Maple 2024. In the new interface, it now takes two or three clicks to do so. Since this is a function used very frequently, that’s a drawback. Couldn’t users be allowed to customize the Quick Access toolbar — via the Options menu — so these items can be placed there if needed?

 

 

How can I=sqrt(-1) can be properly factored out fr...

Asked by: Ahmed111 140
radical simplify simplification
August 15 2025
1  3

I am trying to factor out I = sqrt(-1) from square roots in my Maple expression by using a substitution f2. However, after applying these substitutions to my final expression, there is no visible change. In addition, the term sqrt(2)/2 + sqrt(2)*I/2 also appear. How can I=sqrt(-1) can be properly factored out from the square roots?

> 

restart
> 

with(Student[Precalculus])
> 

interface(showassumed = 0)
> 

assume(x::real); assume(t::real); assume(lambda1::complex); assume(lambda2::complex); assume(a::real); assume(A__c::real); assume(B1::real); assume(B2::real); assume(delta1::real); assume(delta2::real); assume(`ω__0`::real); assume(g::real); assume(l__0::real)
> 

expr := (0*A__c)*exp(-(2*I)*(A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1/2)*`ω__0`*t)+(2*I)*exp(-I*(A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1/2)*`ω__0`*t)*(sqrt(delta1+I*delta2-sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2))*exp(-2*sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)*(l__0^2*(I*delta1-delta2)*t*`ω__0`+(1/2)*x))-sqrt(delta1+I*delta2+sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2))*exp(sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)*(x+(2*I)*`ω__0`*l__0^2*(delta1+I*delta2)*t)))*(sqrt(-delta1+I*delta2-sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2))*exp((2*(l__0^2*(I*delta1+delta2)*t*`ω__0`-(1/2)*x))*sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2))-sqrt(-delta1+I*delta2+sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2))*exp(-(2*(l__0^2*(I*delta1+delta2)*t*`ω__0`-(1/2)*x))*sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)))*delta2/(exp(I*(A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1/2)*`ω__0`*t)*(((-sqrt(delta1+I*delta2-sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2))*sqrt(-delta1+I*delta2+sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2))-sqrt(delta1+I*delta2+sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2))*sqrt(-delta1+I*delta2-sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)))*exp((2*(l__0^2*(I*delta1+delta2)*t*`ω__0`-(1/2)*x))*sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2))+exp(-(2*(l__0^2*(I*delta1+delta2)*t*`ω__0`-(1/2)*x))*sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2))*(sqrt(delta1+I*delta2-sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2))*sqrt(-delta1+I*delta2-sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2))+sqrt(-delta1+I*delta2+sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2))*sqrt(delta1+I*delta2+sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2))))*exp(-2*sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)*(l__0^2*(I*delta1-delta2)*t*`ω__0`+(1/2)*x))+exp(sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)*(x+(2*I)*`ω__0`*l__0^2*(delta1+I*delta2)*t))*((sqrt(delta1+I*delta2-sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2))*sqrt(-delta1+I*delta2-sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2))+sqrt(-delta1+I*delta2+sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2))*sqrt(delta1+I*delta2+sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)))*exp((2*(l__0^2*(I*delta1+delta2)*t*`ω__0`-(1/2)*x))*sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2))-exp(-(2*(l__0^2*(I*delta1+delta2)*t*`ω__0`-(1/2)*x))*sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2))*(sqrt(delta1+I*delta2-sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2))*sqrt(-delta1+I*delta2+sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2))+sqrt(delta1+I*delta2+sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2))*sqrt(-delta1+I*delta2-sqrt(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)))))*(-delta1+I*delta2)*(delta1+I*delta2))

(2*I)*exp(-I*(A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1/2)*omega__0*t)*((delta1+I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*exp(-2*(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2)*(l__0^2*(I*delta1-delta2)*t*omega__0+(1/2)*x))-(delta1+I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*exp((-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2)*(x+(2*I)*omega__0*l__0^2*(delta1+I*delta2)*t)))*((-delta1+I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*exp(2*(l__0^2*(I*delta1+delta2)*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))-(-delta1+I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*exp(-2*(l__0^2*(I*delta1+delta2)*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2)))*delta2/(exp(I*(A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1/2)*omega__0*t)*(((-(delta1+I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(-delta1+I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)-(delta1+I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(-delta1+I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2))*exp(2*(l__0^2*(I*delta1+delta2)*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))+exp(-2*(l__0^2*(I*delta1+delta2)*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))*((delta1+I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(-delta1+I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)+(-delta1+I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta1+I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)))*exp(-2*(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2)*(l__0^2*(I*delta1-delta2)*t*omega__0+(1/2)*x))+exp((-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2)*(x+(2*I)*omega__0*l__0^2*(delta1+I*delta2)*t))*(((delta1+I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(-delta1+I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)+(-delta1+I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta1+I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2))*exp(2*(l__0^2*(I*delta1+delta2)*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))-exp(-2*(l__0^2*(I*delta1+delta2)*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))*((delta1+I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(-delta1+I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)+(delta1+I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g+(delta1+I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(-delta1+I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g+(delta1-I*delta2)^2)^(1/2))^(1/2))))*(I*delta2-delta1)*(delta1+I*delta2))

 (1)
> 

`assuming`([simplify(combine(simplify(convert(combine(eval(expr, delta1 = 0)), trigh))))], [delta2 > g*A__c and g*A__c > 0])

(cos((2*A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1)*omega__0*t)-I*sin((2*A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1)*omega__0*t))*(-I*cosh(4*(l__0^2*delta2*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))*delta2+(I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)+sinh(4*(l__0^2*delta2*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))/(delta2*(I*(I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*cosh(4*(l__0^2*delta2*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))+delta2))

 (2)
> 

f1 := simplify(convert(numer(%),exp))/factor(denom(%))

I*exp(-(2*I)*(A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1/2)*omega__0*t)*(-I*cosh(4*(l__0^2*delta2*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))*delta2+(I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)+sinh(4*(l__0^2*delta2*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))/((-(I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*cosh(2*(2*delta2*l__0^2*t*omega__0-x)*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))+I*delta2)*delta2)

 (3)
> 

sqrtterms := indets(%, sqrt)

{(I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2), (I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2), (-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2)}

 (4)
> 

f2 := subs({sqrtterms[1] = sqrt(I)*sqrt(delta2-sqrt(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)/(I)), sqrtterms[2] = sqrt(I)*sqrt(delta2+sqrt(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)/(I)), sqrtterms[3] = sqrt(I)*sqrt(A__c^2*g+delta2^2)})

{(I*delta2-(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2) = ((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*(delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2), (I*delta2+(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2) = ((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*(delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2), (-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2) = ((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*(A__c^2*g+delta2^2)^(1/2)}

 (5)
> 

f3 := subs(f2, f1)

I*exp(-(2*I)*(A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1/2)*omega__0*t)*(-I*cosh(4*(l__0^2*delta2*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*(A__c^2*g+delta2^2)^(1/2))*delta2+((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))^2*(delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)+sinh(4*(l__0^2*delta2*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*(A__c^2*g+delta2^2)^(1/2))*((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*(A__c^2*g+delta2^2)^(1/2))/((-((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))^2*(delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*cosh(2*(2*delta2*l__0^2*t*omega__0-x)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*(A__c^2*g+delta2^2)^(1/2))+I*delta2)*delta2)

 (6)
> 

f4 := subs({sqrt(A__c^2*g+delta2^2) = Z}, f3)

I*exp(-(2*I)*(A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1/2)*omega__0*t)*(-I*cosh(4*(l__0^2*delta2*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*Z)*delta2+((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))^2*(delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)+sinh(4*(l__0^2*delta2*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*Z)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*Z)/((-((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))^2*(delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*cosh(2*(2*delta2*l__0^2*t*omega__0-x)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*Z)+I*delta2)*delta2)

 (7)
> 

f4f := A__c*exp(-(2*I)*(A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1/2)*`ω__0`*t)+f4

A__c*exp(-(2*I)*(A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1/2)*omega__0*t)+I*exp(-(2*I)*(A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1/2)*omega__0*t)*(-I*cosh(4*(l__0^2*delta2*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*Z)*delta2+((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))^2*(delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)+sinh(4*(l__0^2*delta2*t*omega__0-(1/2)*x)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*Z)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*Z)/((-((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))^2*(delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*cosh(2*(2*delta2*l__0^2*t*omega__0-x)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)+((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*Z)+I*delta2)*delta2)

 (8)
> 

f4fnl := subs({I = -I, x = -x}, f4f)

A__c*exp((2*I)*(A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1/2)*omega__0*t)-I*exp((2*I)*(A__c^2*g*l__0^2-1/2)*omega__0*t)*(I*cosh(4*(l__0^2*delta2*t*omega__0+(1/2)*x)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)-((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*Z)*delta2+((1/2)*2^(1/2)-((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))^2*(delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)+sinh(4*(l__0^2*delta2*t*omega__0+(1/2)*x)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)-((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*Z)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)-((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*Z)/((-((1/2)*2^(1/2)-((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))^2*(delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*cosh(2*(2*delta2*l__0^2*t*omega__0+x)*((1/2)*2^(1/2)-((1/2)*I)*2^(1/2))*Z)-I*delta2)*delta2)

 (9)
> 

Mdensity := simplify(f4f*f4fnl)

(1/4)*(2*(1-I*A__c*cosh((1-I)*(2*delta2*l__0^2*t*omega__0+x)*2^(1/2)*Z)*delta2)*(delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)-2*cosh((1-I)*(2*delta2*l__0^2*t*omega__0+x)*2^(1/2)*Z)*delta2+(1+I)*2^(1/2)*Z*sinh((1-I)*(2*delta2*l__0^2*t*omega__0+x)*2^(1/2)*Z)+(2*I)*A__c*delta2^2)*(2*(I*(delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*A__c-1)*delta2*cosh((1+I)*(2*delta2*l__0^2*t*omega__0-x)*2^(1/2)*Z)+(1-I)*2^(1/2)*Z*sinh((1+I)*(2*delta2*l__0^2*t*omega__0-x)*2^(1/2)*Z)-(2*I)*A__c*delta2^2+2*(delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2))/(delta2^2*((delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*cosh((1+I)*(2*delta2*l__0^2*t*omega__0-x)*2^(1/2)*Z)-delta2)*((delta2-I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*(delta2+I*(-A__c^2*g-delta2^2)^(1/2))^(1/2)*cosh((1-I)*(2*delta2*l__0^2*t*omega__0+x)*2^(1/2)*Z)-delta2))

 (10)

NULL

Download simplify.mw

Are there alternatives to Ribbon-Based GUIs

by: C_R 3437 Maple 2025
interface gui ribbon
August 09 2025
5  0

I was wondering whether MapleSoft has opted for an outdated concept. Here is Gemini's answer:

Yes, there are many alternatives to ribbon-based GUIs. The ribbon UI, while popular and effective for many applications (especially those with a large number of functions like Microsoft Office), isn't the only way to design an interface. Here are some common alternatives:

 

  • Traditional Menus and Toolbars: This is the classic approach seen in older software. A menu bar at the top provides access to all commands, while toolbars offer quick-access icons for the most common functions. Many applications, especially on Linux, still use this model. A variation is to allow the user to customize their toolbars.

  • Command Palettes: This is a popular approach in modern text editors and IDEs (like Visual Studio Code or Sublime Text). The user presses a keyboard shortcut to bring up a search bar that allows them to quickly find and execute any command in the application. This is highly efficient for power users who know what they're looking for.

  • Contextual Menus (Right-Click Menus): These menus appear when a user right-clicks on an element. They present a list of actions relevant to the selected item. This is a very common and intuitive way to provide functionality without cluttering the main interface.

  • Sidebar or Panel-Based Interfaces: This design uses a vertical panel, often on the left or right side of the screen, to display tools, options, or settings. This is often seen in design software, where the user can access layers, brushes, or properties from a dedicated panel.

  • Hamburger Menus: A three-line icon (the "hamburger") that, when clicked, reveals a menu of options. This is a very common design in mobile applications and is increasingly used in desktop web applications and software to save screen space.

  • Floating Toolbars/Heads-Up Display (HUD): These are toolbars that appear near the user's cursor or the selected object. This keeps the tools close to where the user is working, reducing mouse travel. This is a common pattern in creative applications like 3D modeling or video editing software.

The best choice depends on the type of application, the target user, and the platform. For applications with a huge number of features, a ribbon can be a good way to organize them visually. For applications with a more limited set of functions, or for a mobile-first design, a simpler approach is often better.

Nothing exciting new but the insight that Maple's GUI is a hybrid that adds to the ribbon other concepts. Since the Maple ribbon is young and not part of the training data set, I asked for a better GUI for Word instead:

A "better" GUI for Word is subjective, as different users have different needs. The current ribbon interface is great for discovering features, but it can also feel cluttered.

So, instead of just one idea, here are three different approaches that could improve the Word GUI for different types of users:

 

This GUI would learn from your habits. Instead of a static ribbon, the tabs and icons would change based on what you're doing.

  • Smart Ribbon: The ribbon would automatically switch to the most relevant tab. For example, if you highlight text, the "Home" tab would expand with formatting options like font size, bold, and color. If you're near a table, the "Table Design" and "Layout" tabs would appear instantly.

  • Contextual Command Palette: A simple keyboard shortcut (like Ctrl + K) would bring up a search bar in the middle of the screen. You could type "insert table of contents" or "change line spacing" and the command would execute without you having to hunt for it in the ribbon. This is a much faster option for power users.

 

This approach would strip away everything that isn't essential for a focused writing experience.

  • Floating Toolbar: When you start typing, the entire ribbon disappears. When you highlight text, a small, floating toolbar with only the most basic formatting options (bold, italic, font size, bullet points) appears right next to your cursor.

  • "Focus Mode" on Steroids: A dedicated "Focus Mode" would hide all menus, toolbars, and even the scroll bar. You would see only your document on a clean background. All advanced functions would be accessible through the command palette or a single-click button that temporarily brings back the full ribbon.

 

This design would let users build their own ideal workspace.

  • Customizable Side Panels: Instead of one giant ribbon, the GUI would be made of modular side panels that you could dock, undock, and resize. You could have a "Styles" panel on the left and a "Review" panel on the right, or a "References" panel that's only visible when you're working on a bibliography.

  • "My Tab": Users could create their own custom ribbon tab called "My Tab" and drag and drop their most-used commands into it. For example, a student might have "Footnote," "Citations," and "Table of Contents" all on one tab for easy access.

Each of these designs solves a different problem with the current ribbon. The Adaptive Interface helps you find what you need quickly, the Minimalist Interface promotes focus, and the Modular Interface gives you complete control over your workspace.

The highlighted passages point to areas that have been mentioned already in many comments on the GUI. However, there is one more that really stands in the way for me to work with the new GUI. It could be summarized as "Too many clicks". The former GUI (less intuitive, IMO) was in this respect much more optimzed for productivity.
For example, inserting a text passage or putting the cursor into a text passage implies that the user most likely desires formating options. With the new GUI it is required to click on the edit tab (after having clicked on the insert tab or even more clicky with the quick access bar, which is for this use case not  really quick).

With the former GUI (having a larger quick acess bar) and a tool bar (in red)

only one click was required with substantially less mouse movement.

Personally I would switch to the new GUI with the following improvements

  • a quick access bar that is customizable
  • a smart ribbon that switches to the edit mode tab when the cursor is placed on editable text or a new text/input/document block is inserted

Having the functions that I use most frequently available in the quick access tool bar (highlighted in yellow) would allow me to minimize the ribbon with the same productivity and even more screen space as before.

Keyboard shortcuts that differ from standard OS shortcuts are not a viable alternative for me.

Overall, the direction with the new ribbon seems to be right to get new users productive faster. It seems to be a good choice without clear alternatives, and its graphical design aligns much better with the core values Maple provides.

However, becoming productive fast does not mean that the productivity is high. From this perspective the former GUI is not outdated yet. The workflow with it is much faster and more focussed on math and code.

Perhaps MapleSoft has solutions that will make the new GUI even more productive than the former GUI. This would be great!

I have to change my Maple form 2024 to 2025 for my...

Asked by: MariamBambi 5
August 07 2025
1  1

Like i said before i have to change it to Maple 2025 should i download the 2025? and will my data disappear? or not?

Best regards MR

Some feedback of Maple2025

by: JingyuLi 15 Maple 2025
August 06 2025
3  2

In Maple 2025, there are many strange issues, such as plot errors in math apps under Computer Science > Boolean Algebra, which did not occur in Maple 2024. Furthermore, in the 2025 version, when you open load package, some packages are blocked, and you must hide the taskbar to see the blocked packages. Finally, the Ribbon interface in Maple 2025 is really not suitable. Restart and startup code should not be placed in Home; some interfaces should be removed, or an option to retain the 2024 interface should be provided. I sincerely hope my suggestions are taken into consideration. Thank you.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Last Page 1 of 9