the second mail was killed by a spam filter by the provider ... anyway: it arrived

1. using my 'regular' email address i almost immediately received the following in my mail washer: [Image "MaplePrimes" ignored] Axel Vogt [links to mailto:...@axelvogt.de] thought you would like to see this page from MaplePrimes Message from Sender: Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteers are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe. n/a Click here to read more on our site [links to http://www.mapleprimes.com/forward//email_ref] 2. Using my allowed, but strange address &noreply@axelvogt.de (which i use against spam bots posting at the usenet) i get nothing Edited to add: using Firefox 2.0.0.3 in an Elingsh eidtion

Fine, i like that! Which of Knuth's book do you mean within your code? NB: Tim, why not providing the above and explaining the conventions and settings for the various compilers in an own thread, say as complete example projects ready to use (Dave, i think that's what Tim may have meant)

i have no problem with this (there are other layout things i dislike ...) ... but having more than only 1 notification mail per day (that i received a board mail) would be not bad

i did it only in a classic sheet (and not the shortest one): collect(k,P,`^`)

it is a marketing problem (i want to guess) ... and: yes, not really afraid of some individuals ...

for me difficult to say what you want (the title you refer to gives me no insight ...) and your Excel sheet does not work here (and it does not have any code ...), but i guess you may want to set Maple to 14 - 15 Digits of precision to compare numerical VBA code

i would prefer the left and right side to be kicked of (say: by a button) and (without being logged in) to have either a time-sequential presentation or a tree view (with a tree on the left, similar to Google groups), both selectable by the user as an option

  Int(exp(arcsin(x)), x);
  Change(%,arcsin(x)=y,y);
  value(%): simplify(%);

                           /
                          |
                          |  exp(y) cos(y) dy
                          |
                         /


                     1/2 exp(y) (cos(y) + sin(y))

Now check for a definite integral, say over [-1, +1] and [+1, +2] ...

Not a bad choice at all! Winners, we are waiting for some electronic beer ... err: coffee :-)

for explaining some around I find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor quite good, while the asked "interpretation" is usually given through Differential Geometry I thought for flavoring coffee I prefer cacao - just adding a bit to the coffee powder (do not know what wikipedia says about that)

for explaining some around I find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor quite good, while the asked "interpretation" is usually given through Differential Geometry I thought for flavoring coffee I prefer cacao - just adding a bit to the coffee powder (do not know what wikipedia says about that)

By OpenMaple I would understand to communicate with Maple through a DLL (or an other C program). To communicate between Excel VBA and a DLL you need to compile it according to calling conventions for MS Office, which is _stdcall. The obvious and easy choice from VBA however is to just mimic what is given in examples for using Maple through an Excel worksheet (attention: MS is language dependant!). To do that from VBA one has to add a socalled "reference" to the Maple addin WMIMPLEX.xla, which does the rest for you (you do that through the menu in the project window, just hands on & try). Results can either just printed to a debug window in VBA or have to be passed (as string I think) to a worksheet for display (for which usually there is no need, as one can call Maple 'directly' from there).

Actually I meant the book pointed to by Robert Israel and the rest of the answer (in terrible English) was thought for the originator :-) The subsequent discussion is interesting (but a bit off topic) and taking it half-serious with a glass of wine could make it last for loooong. I think in variants that is quite old (without looking into Philosophy) and not limited to Math vs Physics, you find it in Math as well ("The Pures" vs "The Applied" or similar), an impressive suada is given by V I Arnold "On teaching mathematics", 1997, it starts as "Mathematics is a part of physics. Physics is an experimental science, a part of natural science. Mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap." Anyway, I do not think that intuition is killed, most of my teachers tried to 'teach' me the 'abstract intuition' the have or had. But I do not have an opinion on "the" concurrent state, I left Math almost 20 years ago. However there is some sociocultural risk in the tendency of such discussions: if you slice that slightly utilitarian down enough you find yourself arguing with somebody why we need (higher) schools and do not just go ahead to work the land (sorry, that is unfair). When I learned Algebraic Geometry the fellows from Physics chattered "no sheafs, no cohomology, just do ...". When looking into Physics occasionally my impression is that something has changed (but dito I gabbled about Numerics or Stochastics). Just my 2 semi-rusty Cents ...

Actually I meant the book pointed to by Robert Israel and the rest of the answer (in terrible English) was thought for the originator :-) The subsequent discussion is interesting (but a bit off topic) and taking it half-serious with a glass of wine could make it last for loooong. I think in variants that is quite old (without looking into Philosophy) and not limited to Math vs Physics, you find it in Math as well ("The Pures" vs "The Applied" or similar), an impressive suada is given by V I Arnold "On teaching mathematics", 1997, it starts as "Mathematics is a part of physics. Physics is an experimental science, a part of natural science. Mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap." Anyway, I do not think that intuition is killed, most of my teachers tried to 'teach' me the 'abstract intuition' the have or had. But I do not have an opinion on "the" concurrent state, I left Math almost 20 years ago. However there is some sociocultural risk in the tendency of such discussions: if you slice that slightly utilitarian down enough you find yourself arguing with somebody why we need (higher) schools and do not just go ahead to work the land (sorry, that is unfair). When I learned Algebraic Geometry the fellows from Physics chattered "no sheafs, no cohomology, just do ...". When looking into Physics occasionally my impression is that something has changed (but dito I gabbled about Numerics or Stochastics). Just my 2 semi-rusty Cents ...