Bendesarts

345 Reputation

10 Badges

9 years, 143 days

MaplePrimes Activity


These are replies submitted by Bendesarts

@John Fredsted 

Exactly, I use module end module to build my packages and subpackages.

@acer 

Thank you acer for your answer.

Did you think to this thread ?

http://www.mapleprimes.com/questions/208874-Automatic-Indentation

You are think, I think that I will try emacs with maplev.

But, for my idea of "group/ ungroup lines", does the use of an external text editor change something ?

Thank you for your help.

 

@John Fredsted 

Hello,

Thank you for your help.

I have written my code directly in a worksheet.

But, my issue is that I believe that it is not possible to use sections inside a package?

Consequently, my package is made of many lines in a worksheet and it is hard to have a overview of the package where i could see the different subpackages of my package.

By "group/ ungroup lines", i mean that I would like to put all the lines of a subpackage in something like a section. By this way, i could see easily all the subpackages of my packages. I would enable me, for example, to go easily to the subpackage 3 and see all the procedures of this packages. At the moment, I spend many time scrolling to look for a procedure of a subpackage.

Thank you for your feedback

@Preben Alsholm 

Thank you for you remark.

And concerning the point 1), is there a possibility to group lines (as a section) inside a package ?

Thank you for your feedback

@acer 

These ligns have perfectly answered to my need and I could copy/ paste the code line of a procedure

interface(verboseproc= 2);

interface(prettyprint=1);

PrintModule(Module)

@Carl Love 

I have tried this command but it doesn't change anything.

I'm interested if you have new ideas.

Thank you for your help

@Carl Love 

Great Carl thank you for your help. It is very clear.

Otherwise, can you tell me just a bit more why you find the Record function better (or more appropriate in my case) than the table function ?

Thank you for your help. 

@Axel Vogt 

For cos(z)=a, there are in a period more than one solution whihc are +/-arccos(a). Consequently, I would like to choose the solution which interests me in the frame of the mechanical problem I'm trying to solve. In my case, this is the solution which stays between [-Pi/2,Pi/2]

@Thomas Richard 

@Axel Vogt 

2) That depends on the expression and the range. I'll leave it to other to comment on specific examples. An interesting one was recently discussed here, but I don't have the link, sorry

It would be great if so can provide this link?

Thank you for your help

@Axel Vogt 

Due to the cos function, even if the equation is quiet simple, i think that you can not say that the equation is linear.

For the time dependency, we can suppress it because i observe my equation for a fixed time.

So we can considerer the equation without the time dependency as you can see below :

S1_eq5_psi[4] := -cos(gamma[0]+psi[4])*cr+sin(gamma[0])*lr-cos(-phi[4]+gamma[4])*mr-cos(gamma[4])*pr+z0-zp[4] = 0
solve({S1_eq5_psi[4],psi[4]>=-Pi/2,psi[4]<=Pi/2},psi[4]);

for the unknown psi[4], i look for solution with psi[4] belong to the range [-Pi/2,Pi/2].

For the parameters, cr>0, lr>0, mr>0, pr>0 are constant positive and z0 and zp[4] are reals.

I hope my solution will help to bring new ideas on this subject.

Thank you for your help

@Kitonum 

ok. thank you for your feedback.

However, I would like to keep complete symbolic equations. but, i could also precise ranges for the parameters. In this case, a>0 for example.

Do you have other ideas so that I can solve symbolic trigonometric equations if both variables and parameters have some domain definition ?

Here a more detail example of the kind of trigonometric equation that I would like to solve symbolically

S1_eq5_psi[4] := -cos(gamma[0](t)+psi[4](t))*cr+sin(gamma[0](t))*lr-cos(-phi[4](t)+gamma[4](t))*mr-cos(gamma[4](t))*pr+z0(t)-zp[4](t) = 0
solve({S1_eq5_psi[4],psi[4](t)>=-Pi/2,psi[4](t)<=Pi/2},psi[4](t));

Thank you for your help

 

@tomleslie 

perfect thank you

@tomleslie 

Perfect, it answers to my question.

The only point that I would need is to remove the brackets when there are more than 1 solutions.

I would like to obtain something like that sol1,sol2 instead of {sol1},{sol2}.

I have tried but without success with the op function.

May you help me to obtain the solution formatted as sol1,sol2, sol3 ... without the brackets ?

Thank you for your help

@vv 

Thank you for your help.

But, I find this solution not very convenient because the parameter linked to the slider and the one link to the textarea are not bound. Consequently, I think that it can lead to mistakes.

I would prefer a solution where the value of the parameter in the textarea and the one in the slider would be same. In other word, an altercation of the value in the textarea is taken into account in the slider or the contrary, a altercation of the slider is taken into account in the textarea.

Would you have other ideas ?

Thanks a lot for your help

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Last Page 2 of 16