Sorry for the long delay, I have a backlog which I am slowly catching up on.

getArgs := (inert,argType) -> select(type, inert, 'specfunc'('anything', `_Inert_`||argType));

is, to me, simpler. The main reason is that logically getArgs is doing a selection on a type, so it really should be written that way. In own code, I typically have a definition like

`type/inertChunk` := (e,t) -> type(e,'specfunc'('anything', `_Inert_`||t));
so that I can simplify getArgs (and many similar functions) to
getArgs := (inert,argType) -> select(type, [op(inert)], inertChunk(argType));

Assuming that you can use a computer, and Maple's user-interface is 'usable' for you, then yes, Maple will help. In fact, its pointy-clicky interface that frustrates advanced users may be just the kind of thing that would make Maple very well suited for your use.

Assuming that you can use a computer, and Maple's user-interface is 'usable' for you, then yes, Maple will help. In fact, its pointy-clicky interface that frustrates advanced users may be just the kind of thing that would make Maple very well suited for your use.

It was not implemented because no one who worked on the integrator was aware of this formula [or if they were, that Maple didn't use it]. Think of it as a genuine 'oops'. I would hope that this is now on someone's task list - but it may not be at the very top...

One should either use LinearAlgebra:-LinearSolve or put uses LinearAlgebra; early in the proc. It is always bad style to have a procedure that depends on the users' environment (i.e. whether with(LinearAlgebra); has been executed or not). It is really too bad that mint does not warn about that (that I remember).

One should either use LinearAlgebra:-LinearSolve or put uses LinearAlgebra; early in the proc. It is always bad style to have a procedure that depends on the users' environment (i.e. whether with(LinearAlgebra); has been executed or not). It is really too bad that mint does not warn about that (that I remember).

Why is this post by Kathleen McNichol showing up in dcasimir's blog?

That convergence is what the Calculemus interest group is all about. It was initiated in 1999, and is still alive, with the next conference to be held jointly with MKM and AISC. I am definitely involved in trying to get that convergence to happen, in part through the MathScheme project. While the general framework has been in place for a while, various foundational work remained, much of which is now done: we now have a logic (Chiron) that can deal with deduction and computation, a proper case study of how to specify such a system, as well as some definite implementation ideas (3 links).

That convergence is what the Calculemus interest group is all about. It was initiated in 1999, and is still alive, with the next conference to be held jointly with MKM and AISC. I am definitely involved in trying to get that convergence to happen, in part through the MathScheme project. While the general framework has been in place for a while, various foundational work remained, much of which is now done: we now have a logic (Chiron) that can deal with deduction and computation, a proper case study of how to specify such a system, as well as some definite implementation ideas (3 links).

The product Theorist/MathView/LiveMath has the facility of being able to provide "context regions". And, of course, all "theorem proving" software have that capability as well.

The product Theorist/MathView/LiveMath has the facility of being able to provide "context regions". And, of course, all "theorem proving" software have that capability as well.

This is exactly right. I don't know if it is a frequently asked question, but it certainly does come up now and then. Where is the Maple Wiki when you need it? This is exactly the kind of material that belongs there. Right now there is no good repository for 'intermediate' information about Maple.

This is exactly right. I don't know if it is a frequently asked question, but it certainly does come up now and then. Where is the Maple Wiki when you need it? This is exactly the kind of material that belongs there. Right now there is no good repository for 'intermediate' information about Maple.

I continue to be amazed that the user-interface is allowed to get in the way of such basic features as polynomial operations, something which has worked fine in Maple for 25 years now. This users' experience is as clear an example of serious usability flaws of the current approach. The user tried to do something basic and simple (for Maple), but failed because the system got in his way.

I continue to be amazed that the user-interface is allowed to get in the way of such basic features as polynomial operations, something which has worked fine in Maple for 25 years now. This users' experience is as clear an example of serious usability flaws of the current approach. The user tried to do something basic and simple (for Maple), but failed because the system got in his way.