Thats how the the output looks like when I change back to 4k (without execution of any commands. i.e. it is the same plot as above):

(A while ago I contacted support with that issue but they could not reproduce it because they had no 4k monitors to test.)

@Carl Love 

My example was misleading. Older Maple version did not allow to use implicitplot3d without ranges so I put something that did not match the OPs screenshot.

I can exactly reproduce the tiny fonds and how it looks differently if I change to 2k (with Maple 2023)

@acer 

Thank you. I looked at the wrong spot for the Airy question. For "_M" I can't find anything.

Is there more information available in the console window?

@ecterrab 

I can see that turning the output of options off by default is not a good idea. I was more interested to switch the display of for a particular output not to expose readers who are not familiar with Maple with that detail. 

In this case I would of course also hide Maple Input.

Did you forget to attach the code?

@acer too easy. Thanks

@Joe Riel 

I tested int warnings on another elliptic expression

https://www.mapleprimes.com/questions/233304-How-To-Find-The-Inverse-Function-Of

This time it behaved as I would have expected (i.e. no supression of warnings after repeated tries). It seems that it depends on the type of integrand. I will leave it like this. Thank you

@acer 

This comes from applying the chain rule to

and then integrating over varphi.

That's a formal step to avoid using differentials. The left hand side integrated is nothing else than the time (as a function of an angle of a pendulum in this case. If varphi_t=varphi_0 the pendulum has made a half period.) It is easy to do this with differentials but Maple does not provide such a caculus (for a good reason).

Alternativley to that I could change variables (in this case I could not apply and equation that relates the variables because this is function varphi(t) that I try do derive).

So far the left hand side does not evaluate to t(varphi_t)-t(-varphi_0) and I am obligied to replaced this confusing term by t manually.

@sursumCorda 
I found an exception from your golden ratio discovery that works as expected

solve(0 <= ln(a/2) + ln(1 + a));

In this case also an additional relation between 0 and 1 does not change the result (as in my last reply to dharr).

solve({0 <= ln(a/2) + ln(1 + a),a>1/2});

So these things seem to come together.

@Joe Riel 

Thank you for the workaround but for what reason warnings disapear (in case of varphi without t)?

Is it a (new?) mechanism that Maple does not issue the same warnings after two times?

Just for your information: Here are related posts where I was more concerned to make warnings apear:

https://www.mapleprimes.com/questions/235722-Why-A-Restart-Is-Needed-To-Get-A-Helpfull

https://www.mapleprimes.com/questions/235770-Why-No-Warning-Is-Returned-With-2D-Input

@dharr Interesting findings!

The logarithmic substitutions for the original statement with ln

solve({a > 0, ln(a) + ln(1 + a) >= 0}, a);

lead to the statement you have given that the semi-algebraic solver solves successfully (and correct IMO).

solve({a>0,a*(a+1)>=1},a);

For me it looks like that the output is not assembled correctly (i.e. < and <= are treated the same way).

Here is another output that looks incorrectly combined in an OR fashion instead of AND

solve({0 <= ln(a) + ln(1 + a), 1 <= a}, a)

 With -1<a we are back to

@sursumCorda

To your question: "But there is no warning message. Why?"

In an other instances warnings on lost solutions are passed to the user (see my reply to mmcdara).

The output of inequal plot looks old. Maybe it bypasses a newer mechansim to handle warnings to the user.

It could be that in your case the warning is suppressed by an "output handler" and not by solve.

However, I still can't see why the solution a = 2/(sqrt(5) + 1) should be treated as a separate solution. For different input the boundary of a domain is included in soluitons with a <=. In my opinion, it appears that solve could be enhanced in this particular case.

@mmcdara your code pasted in 2D

Lost_boundary.mw

@rcorless 

Maybe of interest: Maple can now analytically verify that this is a solution.

I did not know that there is an explict solution appart from a series approach. Does the "magnificent book" give details how that explicit solution can be derived? I would like to understand if and how such a derivation can be reprocuded with Maple.

Reply_HarmonicOscillator-1.mw