@Alejandro Jakubi 

I am the one of plenty of Maple users who really needs GUI. So, your conclusion is wrong ) The correct conclussion is following: the code of GUI really contains an error and that error should be corrected. However developers can have an other opinion.

Maple GUI uses 32bit version of Java. Any 32-bit application is bound to 2GB of used RAM. May be it is better to program the interface for Maple x64 by means of 64bit Java rather than 32bit?...

@ecterrab 

I didn't know that release 17.01 issued before June 19. Sorry.

@ecterrab 

Unfortunately, the problem still persists in version 17.01.

The Software Change Request is added.

@ecterrab 

I just simplified that problem (http://www.mapleprimes.com/questions/148559-Problem-With-Code-Calculation-In-Maple-17) as much as possible and presented that as a post. It is great to hear that the problem is fixed! I look forward to upgrade!

Thank you!

Carl Love

Ok. Maybe it is not a very good idea to split worksheet into two.

Currently I have a long code in one worksheet and respectively a long result. I need  to scroll up and down every time to analize the code and results. That is why I suggested to split a single window :)

Thank you for explanation. I have deleted 'simplify' in my code and it solved my problem.

PS

As Alejandro Jakubi advises it is better to use 'simplify(z,size)' in my case.

Thank you for explanation. I have deleted 'simplify' in my code and it solved my problem.

PS

As Alejandro Jakubi advises it is better to use 'simplify(z,size)' in my case.

@Alejandro Jakubi 

Thank you for simplify(z,size). I didn't know about it.

Unfortunately there is a similar problem in earlier versions of Maple too. If I am not lazy I'll compose similar example of complex expression that Maple 13 can't simplify.

Thank you again.

Could you run my code on different versions of Maple and tell me which ones hang up? I would be grateful to you very much.

Could you run my code on different versions of Maple and tell me which ones hang up? I would be grateful to you very much.

Maple_17_fault.mw

I am sorry very much.

@Alejandro Jakubi 

Great! Thank you!

@Alejandro Jakubi 

Great! Thank you!

Thank you for answers. I guess, I should explain my problem better. In fact I have a system of complex equations that I have to solve. System is very combersome and I'm trying to use Maple as a tool to help me to approach the problem. I make some transformations of the system using Maple and study the result of such transformations. One of the method I need to take is the elimination of some complex expressions from the equation. I tried it for the most simple equation. I prefer exactly to eliminate rather than solve as it best meets the aim of current transformation.

Now I consider a bit different equation: a+b*x*conjugate(y) = 0 in order to avoid transformation x*conjugate(x)=abs(x)^2.

I tried the following: subs(x*conjugate(y)=x1, z); but it doesn't work.

However, the following approach works:

>restart;
>z := a+b*x*conjugate(y) = 0;
>r1 := x*conjugate(y) = x1;
>r2 := rhs(r1) = lhs(r1);
>eq1 := applyrule(r1, lhs(z)) = applyrule(r1, rhs(z));
>sol:=eliminate({eq1}, {x1})[1];
>eq2 := {applyrule(r2, lhs(sol[1])) = rhs(sol[1])};

The result is

eq2:={x*conjugate(y)=-a/b}

exactly what I need.

Is it good way? Maybe, it could be improved in some way? I need your oppinions. Thank you.

Thank you for answers. I guess, I should explain my problem better. In fact I have a system of complex equations that I have to solve. System is very combersome and I'm trying to use Maple as a tool to help me to approach the problem. I make some transformations of the system using Maple and study the result of such transformations. One of the method I need to take is the elimination of some complex expressions from the equation. I tried it for the most simple equation. I prefer exactly to eliminate rather than solve as it best meets the aim of current transformation.

Now I consider a bit different equation: a+b*x*conjugate(y) = 0 in order to avoid transformation x*conjugate(x)=abs(x)^2.

I tried the following: subs(x*conjugate(y)=x1, z); but it doesn't work.

However, the following approach works:

>restart;
>z := a+b*x*conjugate(y) = 0;
>r1 := x*conjugate(y) = x1;
>r2 := rhs(r1) = lhs(r1);
>eq1 := applyrule(r1, lhs(z)) = applyrule(r1, rhs(z));
>sol:=eliminate({eq1}, {x1})[1];
>eq2 := {applyrule(r2, lhs(sol[1])) = rhs(sol[1])};

The result is

eq2:={x*conjugate(y)=-a/b}

exactly what I need.

Is it good way? Maybe, it could be improved in some way? I need your oppinions. Thank you.