what have you done so far by yourself?

In German I know that as "Kurvenlineal", http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurvenlineal

At school time (=before computers) I have seen such at graphic designers
or courses for draftsman

Edited: and if memory serves correctly I have also seen it at friend, who did an
education as conservator, he used a kind of scalpel cutting along that ruler,
after fitting for needed 'spares' (?)

The given link into the FAQ is saying not much, instead concrete instructions should be given:

Which directory (working directory says nothing for a new user), file name and a worked example.
Some remarks when it may be not a good idea - and whether there is any need to care for the
chosen interface.

I remember that I was not able to use such ini file, when I started with Maple.

And: for Digits it does not work for classical sheets.

The given link into the FAQ is saying not much, instead concrete instructions should be given:

Which directory (working directory says nothing for a new user), file name and a worked example.
Some remarks when it may be not a good idea - and whether there is any need to care for the
chosen interface.

I remember that I was not able to use such ini file, when I started with Maple.

And: for Digits it does not work for classical sheets.

Isnt that the same as saying that the symmetric matrix is positive definite?

If you only want derivatives w.r.t. a specific parameter, it may be better to
differentiate the integral directly (and after some 'manual' work with Maple
there will be only 1 integral to be evaluated numerically - while fdiff has to
do that any more points ... but if computational time is no point, then just
ignore my remark).

Edited: Or quite brute (and without putting it into a procedure):

restart; Digits:=14;
Int((1-(1-exp(-k*(t-s)))^b)*(1-exp(-160*s^2)), s=0..upper, method = _d01ajc); 
diff(%, k); 
simplify(%);
subs(upper = 0.15, %);
subs(t=2, k=10, b=2.5, %);
evalf(%);
#plot((1-exp(-20+10*s))^1.5*(-2+s)*exp(-20+10*s)*(-1+exp(-160*s^2)), s = 0 .. .15);

                                            -8
                        -0.22800683823463 10

If you only want derivatives w.r.t. a specific parameter, it may be better to
differentiate the integral directly (and after some 'manual' work with Maple
there will be only 1 integral to be evaluated numerically - while fdiff has to
do that any more points ... but if computational time is no point, then just
ignore my remark).

Edited: Or quite brute (and without putting it into a procedure):

restart; Digits:=14;
Int((1-(1-exp(-k*(t-s)))^b)*(1-exp(-160*s^2)), s=0..upper, method = _d01ajc); 
diff(%, k); 
simplify(%);
subs(upper = 0.15, %);
subs(t=2, k=10, b=2.5, %);
evalf(%);
#plot((1-exp(-20+10*s))^1.5*(-2+s)*exp(-20+10*s)*(-1+exp(-160*s^2)), s = 0 .. .15);

                                            -8
                        -0.22800683823463 10

http://cpc.cs.qub.ac.uk/summaries/AEHL_v1_0.html  ?

The usual and first step would be to contact the author(s).

Did not look closer, but here in Maple 9.5 (as you ask in a branch to this thread - plot3d is different) what hirnyk said, as attached zipped sheet

To avoid the graph is dropping to zero level: should be through your if ... without else, may be else NULL can help

adjustedConstraints_.zip

PS: No need to branch into a new thread ...

PPS: how ugly, that cutting down filenames to only some characters does not allow to distinguish on the local machine - can one finitely remove that technical nonsense?

Did not look closer, but here in Maple 9.5 (as you ask in a branch to this thread - plot3d is different) what hirnyk said, as attached zipped sheet

To avoid the graph is dropping to zero level: should be through your if ... without else, may be else NULL can help

adjustedConstraints_.zip

PS: No need to branch into a new thread ...

PPS: how ugly, that cutting down filenames to only some characters does not allow to distinguish on the local machine - can one finitely remove that technical nonsense?

For Gem 6 one may wish to consider 'signum' as well, since 'is' is expensive:

  if 0 < signum(2*sqrt(2)) then print(yes) else print(no) end if;

                                yes

Note that signum(0) = 0, signum(0.0) = 0.0

I also made the experience that this also might work for long and complicated
expressions, where 'is' needed so long, that I killed it.

PS: I like that 'gems' series.

PPS: one can not copy code from your post, since that are images (thus needs
the appended *.mw sheet)

somewhat simplified (symbolic, thus without much care):

ln(x) = alpha*ln(10^(1/4))+ln(alpha*10^(1/10));

eval(%, x=1);
fsolve(%, alpha);
                           0.57160770451331

somewhat simplified (symbolic, thus without much care):

ln(x) = alpha*ln(10^(1/4))+ln(alpha*10^(1/10));

eval(%, x=1);
fsolve(%, alpha);
                           0.57160770451331

Hirnyk, hmhmhm ...

Yes, through evalf = numerics is ok, but I miss the estimates.
May be one has to use the suggested package & its theory.

---

off topic:

@admin: I am not wearing my hat as a legal as I do at work *) and
thus appreciate the thread to be cleaned up by editing, deleteting
and re-arranging things. But its cumbersome work for 'you'. It may
be worth to rethink: much at this board is discussion, it should not
be muddled by strange automatics.

*) Formally: you publish under my identity. Something I did not say.
That is a copyright infringement and forgery of electronic documents.
A serious problem for all helpfull admins of forums ... (including me
in the past). One should try to avoid that risks by a better technique
allowing comments only.

To be clear: Thx & well done.

And: please feel free to delete that off-topic comment (do it!), but
take it as input for an internal discussion for improvement.

Hirnyk, hmhmhm ...

Yes, through evalf = numerics is ok, but I miss the estimates.
May be one has to use the suggested package & its theory.

---

off topic:

@admin: I am not wearing my hat as a legal as I do at work *) and
thus appreciate the thread to be cleaned up by editing, deleteting
and re-arranging things. But its cumbersome work for 'you'. It may
be worth to rethink: much at this board is discussion, it should not
be muddled by strange automatics.

*) Formally: you publish under my identity. Something I did not say.
That is a copyright infringement and forgery of electronic documents.
A serious problem for all helpfull admins of forums ... (including me
in the past). One should try to avoid that risks by a better technique
allowing comments only.

To be clear: Thx & well done.

And: please feel free to delete that off-topic comment (do it!), but
take it as input for an internal discussion for improvement.