## 345 Reputation

9 years, 149 days

## @acer  OK. Thank you for your feedb...

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.

Benjamin

## @tomleslie  Thanks a lot. You perfe...

Thanks a lot. You perfectly answer to my question

## @Carl Love You are right. Thank you for ...

@Carl Love

You are right. Thank you for your precision.

## @tomleslie  First, for the expected...

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:
unprotect(Psi);

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.

correction.mw

Thanks a lot.

## @Mac Dude  Perfect thank you for yo...

Perfect thank you for your help

## Can you give a example so that people ca...

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

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

## @mattcanderson1  @tomleslie  T...

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.

## @tomleslie  I still have my issue h...

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))];
od;

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:
EqAng1mod2[i]:=[EQ1[i],EQ2[i]];
od;

Thanks a lot for your help

## @tomleslie  You exactly get the poi...

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 f...

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.

## @acer  Thanks a lot for your feedba...

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 develop...

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

## @acer    Perfect! It works! I...

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

## @acer       Thank you fo...

@acer

I have still an issue.

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

Do you have others ideas ?

## need some help to use my user package...

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
﻿