I am a Mathematica user trying to make the switch to Maple, so first of all I apologise if I am making a stupid mistake here. The complete script is attached below.

I have the following line in my script:

    b := Trace(map(diff, HermitianTranspose(W), coords[1]) . map(diff, W, coords[1]))

W is a matrix defined earlier in the script. I can provide the context if it would help but I'm not sure if it's relevant to the issue I'm having. The problem is that

    simplify(b) assuming real, r>0

gives a vastly different result to

    simplify(Trace(map(diff, HermitianTranspose(W), coords[1]) . map(diff, W, coords[1]))) assuming real, r>0

How can this be? What can I do to make Maple simplify the expression correctly?

conifold_metric.mw

hello guys,

i have a system of autonomous equations which i want to plot its 3D phase space with directional field,

i have some problem with it :dy.mw , and i dont know how to command for add some directional field for 3D phase space .

thank you guys

I do not know! I am a novice in maple as well as in graph theory. I attach a doc in which i attempted to learn what is network. It seems alright with maple as it gives as what it understands as horizontal and vertical network. I do not expect a horizontal line as horizontal network and vertical line as vertical network, in which case a horizontal line with nodes 1 and 2 will be vertical network if  draw it vertically. The maple, in my opinion ( i am not a maple man) gives the answer in a vertical pattern, rightly so for clarity and space constraint.

I am sorry if i am confusing.  The document in my attempt to know more may give you also more insight. Thanks.

Download MyAttempt.mwMyAttempt.mw

When I use the option assume = nonnegint or integervariables = {...} in Optimization[Minimize], or Optimization[LPSolve] I've got the message "kernel connection lost'. 

Thie even happens when I use the simple example from the Maple help:

with(Optimization):
LPSolve(2*x+5*y,{3*x-y=1,x-y<=5},assume={nonnegative,integer});

It says; mserver.exe has stopped working. 

What's wrong? 

How can I compute F from G according to the following text? (I implemented this but I need a more efficient implementation.)

Given a set G of polynomials which are a subset of k[U, X] and a monomial order with U << X, we want to comput set F from G s.t.

1. F is subset of G and for any two distinct f1, f2 in F , neither lpp (f1) is a multiple of lpp (f2) nor lpp (f2) is a multiple of lpp (f1).

2. for every polynomial g in G, there is some polynomial f in F such that lpp (g) is a multiple of
lpp (f ), i.e. ⟨lpp (F )⟩ = ⟨lpp (G)⟩,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is worth nothing that F is not unique.

Example:  Let us consider G = {ax^2 − y, ay^2 − 1, ax − 1, (a + 1)x − y, (a + 1)y − a} ⊂ Q[a, x, y], with the lexicographic order on terms with a < y < x.

Then F = {ax − 1, (a + 1)y − a} and F ′ = {(a + 1)x − y, (a + 1)y − a} are both considered set.

please not that K[U,X] is a parametric polynomial ring (U is e sequence of parameters and X is a sequence of variables).

lpp(f) is leading monomial of f w.r.t. variables X. For example lpp(a*x^2+b*y)= x^2.

In Maple 2015.1 we have

restart;

solve([sin(2*x)/cos(x+3*Pi/2)=1,  x>-4*Pi, x<-5*Pi/2], x, allsolutions, explicit);

solve([sin(2*x)/cos(x+3*Pi/2)=1, x>0, x<2*Pi], x, allsolutions, explicit);

In the first example, the error message is not clear (actually there exists a unique root  x=-11*Pi/3), in the second example, one root  (x=5*Pi/3) is lost.

I've got this huge chunk of code which leads to an optimiazation at the very last line (Bestangles:=minimize(maximize()-minimize))). This minization is taking a very long time (havent solved it yet) and I would very much like to reduce that time. As I've understood maple does optimization by differentiating and then finding all extremes and comparing. Would this mean that since I minimize and optimize within a minimization command, it differentiates a ton of times? And if this is the case, can I somehow do the differentiation beforehand, since it is the same function being differentiate all the time? Or is there some other way I can improve the code? 
Thanks alot!

Heres the full code:

Download wrong_answers.mwwrong_answers.mwwrong_answers.mw

Ramakrishnan V

rukmini_ramki@hotmail.com

hello everyone

can any one tell me what is this anti reduction method. In the paper of serdal palmuk,the link is given bellow

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2009/202307/

in this paper question #4 is first solved by anti reduction method for  exact solution.

but i dont understand this method,

if anybody know this then please also tell me how to solve this,

and in the next  (6 & 7 ) examples "in the pourus media equation" they first find its particular exact solution.i also dont understand this,so please tell me

actually i know how to solve ODE to find its exact solution but  i dont know how we find exact solutions of partial differtial equations,

so please help me to solve this problem

thanks

How to find the integral
,

assuming k and n  integer?
It is known (McCrea W. H., Whipple F. J. W.Random paths in two and three dimensions, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh. 1940. V. 60. P. 281–298) that

G(n,n)=2/Pi*sum(1/(2*k-1),k=1..n).

The general case is reduced to the case k=n.
This is not a creature of pure reason: the one appears in electric circuits
(see M. Skopenkov, A. Paharev, A. Ustinov, Through resistor net, Mat. pros. Issue 18 (2014), 33-65, in Russian, http://www.mccme.ru/free-books/matpros/pdf/mp-18.pdf).
I found G(8,8) = 182144/(45045*Pi) in 657.797 s and G(9,9) = 3186538/(765765*Pi) in 4157.687 s on my comp by

restart; s := time():(1/2)*VectorCalculus:-int((1-cos(9*Pi*x)*cos(9*Pi*y))/(sin((1/2)*Pi*x)^2+sin((1/2)*Pi*y)^2), [x, y] = Rectangle(0 .. 1, 0 .. 1)); time()-s;
Mathematica 10.3.0 does G(9,9) in 250.391 s on my comp.

Hello,

I have a question about poincare sections. I have this piece of code i need to analyse and I want to use a poincare section in order to so. How could I do it? I am interested in theta and omega. Any help is greatly appreciated! Thank you in advance!

Kind regards,

Gambia Man

Download New_Poincare_section.mw

http://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/Maple/view.aspx?path=Physics/.

i see bra and ket expression are so beautiful,

however,

how do real valued eigenvectors involve in calculation of bra and ket style computation?

Download Bryson_sesson1_p6.mw

Maple's isprime is not a definitive primality test. The input has to pass a "strong pseudo-primality test" and "one Lucas test". This is well documented. I thought I remembered that there is also a way to get Maple to perform a true primality test, but I don't remember how and don't see anything about this in the Maple help system.

Is my memory faulty, or is there no definitive primality test in Maple?

Thanks in advance,

Doug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas B. Meade  <><
Math, USC, Columbia, SC 29208  E-mail: mailto:meade@math.sc.edu
Phone:  (803) 777-6183         URL:    http://www.math.sc.edu

Hello,

How to change the length underline in latex ?

For example in this environment :

$\underline{\mathcal{G}}$

Thank you,

Gérard.