345 Reputation

10 Badges

9 years, 149 days

MaplePrimes Activity

These are replies submitted by Bendesarts


OK. Thank you for your feedback. Let me know when you have a satisfying version. I will be very interested to see and use it.



Thanks a lot. You perfectly answer to my question

@Carl Love

You are right. Thank you for your precision. 


First, for the expected result, i made a mistake, here is the right expected result :

Second, I add this lines at the beginning of my code so as to change the definition of Psi, and transform Psi in a basic symbol (and not a in-built function)

constants:= ({constants} minus {Psi})[]:
`evalf/Psi`:= proc() end proc:
`evalf/constant/Psi`:= proc() end proc:

third, you are also right concerning gamma0, I forgot to conduct one substitution.

fourth, I put a semicolon in the list of my substitutions.

So, now it works well with eval[recurse](eq, [ChgtVariables]);

I put an extract of my code for information.

Thanks a lot.






@Mac Dude 

Perfect thank you for your help

Can you give a example so that people can help you ?

The best is to give a piece of code showing your problem.



Thank you for your help.

You are right, sorry for this question. I was a bit tired at the end of the week.

For you picture, I can't see it.


I still have my issue here the code for troubleshooting :

for i to 4 do
EqAng1mod1[i]:=[tan(alpha0(t)) = tan(alpha[i](t)), sin(beta0(t)) = sin(beta[i](t))];

for i to 4 do
EQ1[i]:=alpha0(t)=solve(EqAng1mod1[i][1],alpha0(t)) assuming -Pi/2 < alpha0(t) and alpha0(t) < Pi/2:
EQ2[i]:=beta0(t)=solve(EqAng2mod1[i][2],beta0(t)) assuming 0 < beta0(t) and beta0(t) < Pi:

Thanks a lot for your help


You exactly get the point !

And consequently, do you have ideas so as to better "wrap" the assumptions ? The objective is that the second equation be not evaluated as a assumtion

Have you tried the latex function ?

As fat I concerned, I launch the latex function.

Next, I copy/ paste in word equipped with Mathtype and it runs.


Thanks a lot for your feedback and very interesting answer.

However, I would be very interested if you have a suggestion of code which enable the simplication without a prior analysis of the variables (here x=[p,g,th]) that you want to be allowed to be combined.

In other words, I would be very interested by a more general code as you told at the end of your posts. I only hope that the simplification could be conducted with a time inferior to 10 min.

Thanks a lot for your help

For the 3bar mechanism, have you developped the mechanical equations of the kinematics ? And if yes, is it possible for you to share it ?



Perfect! It works!

I just find it something a bit curious in the path linked to the fact I have some antislash and slash (second line) and not only slash for the definition of the path. But, it is not important. I could create my package and use it.

Thanks a lot






Thank you for your help.

I have still an issue.

I think there is something wrong in the way of defining the path.

Do you have others ideas ?

Thank you in advance



When I launch the save function to store the package, I receive this mistake :


Can you help me so as to well use this function "save" ?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Last Page 4 of 16