Mac Dude

1122 Reputation

13 Badges

7 years, 241 days

MaplePrimes Activity

These are replies submitted by Mac Dude

@Janeasefor Open the worksheet with your proc. Use menuitem "File > Export > Maple input" and save the file where you can find it. Maple will add the extension .mpl and it will be a text file.

The do the read as Yeti told you to. Make sure it is looked for in the right directory (or folder). You can use


to see in which folder Maple will look for the file, or you give a full pathname for the file.


Mac Dude

Menu item "Format:Character..." appears to have the options for formatting. In Maple 2015, strikeout is not one of them.


This appears to be a namespace issue. If you eval(:-Proc1)---to use the OP's example---then what is evaluated is Proc1 as defined at the interactive level, not the one defined in the module. Consequently any changes in the module do not carry into the eval.

What you want to write in the module is

export MyProc;


end MyProc;

and then, at the interactive level, call (after the with(myModule);)


to execute MyProc.



may then work.

Alternatively you can call


but even then you'll need the restart to update MyModule.

But I use restart nevertheless. Too much junk is left behind that tends to confuse me & make debugging extra-difficult when I don't.


I think the first few lines of the error log say all: Java ran out of memory space. The allocation for the JVM for a process is a bit static in the sense ther is an initial allocation and a max. allocation.

On Mac OS X you can increase the memory allocation to the Java process by editing the Info.plist file in the application bundle. On Windows I don't know. The parameters in question, which needs to be appended to the command that starts the Java GUI, are -Xms (the initial allocation) and -Xmx (the max. allocation of memory space). The syntax is like -Xms4m (m for Megabytes). In earlier versions of Maple (maybe around Maple 15) I remember having to do this to get some of my more complicated sheets to run.

The plist has changed since the & I have not had to do this for recent versions of Maple so you'd have to experiment. Maybe a Google search will help. On Windows the parameters will likely be called the same but the place where to findthem will be different.


@acer Thanks very much; this works.

Mac Dude


@Bakry Hmm... I am afraid i cannot help. I have no clue what the VLA package is, who wrote it or anything about it.

You should contact the source of the reference to VLA.


Now, since you mentioned videos; is there any chance that the name was misread and it is really a different package? You will need to see this in context. What is VLA supposed to do?


Did you check out the Physics package by Edgardo Cheb Terrab?

Some of us do not use Twitter. Can these tweets be made available to MaplePrimes or in another context not requiring more than the Maple account we all already have? I can see the value of a quick-response forum so I think this is an idea worthwhile to pursue; but as a MaplePrimes user I do not quite see why I should be left out. And I don't think you would want to hang MaplePrimes out to dry; there are too many complex questions not amenable to be dealt with on Twitter (even with 288 character tweets).

Mac Dude.


For this to work there needs to be a package called VLA. It is not in the standard Maple distribution; with (VLA) does not work for me (Maple2017) either.

If you have a package called VLA it would have a file VLA.mla. This file has to be put into a directory (folder) where Maple can find it. For Maple to find it, the directory has to be included in the sequence making up libname. To find out what is in libname just enter libname at the Maple prompt, and Maple will give you the sequence of strings with the directories it will search for packages.

If you have a Maple worksheet (.mw file) with a package let us know so we can tell you how to convert it to a .mla file.

I hope this helps,


@Carl Love Cool, that does the trick and is consistent with the overall scheme of what I am trying to do.

Thanks much,


@MrMarc The term "Theory of Everything" (TOE) does not imply >everything< can be explained >in detail<. It refers to the idea that one has the fundamental theory that explains our Universe without ad-hoc asumptions or the need to plug in measured values then >in principle< one could derive everything else. The Standard Model is not it, as it has a number of parameters that need to be defined outside of the SM. However, >in principle< is a significant qualifier, as phenomena like chaos make predictions inherently next-to-impossible even if we had literally unlimited computational resources.

E.g. although the mechanics is well known an attempt to calculate exactly and in detail the swirling of the water around the drain as your bathtub empties itself is pretty much hopeless (I am fairly sure though that you can calculate and predict that there will be a rotational motion, however, just not the details). The timing of your and my pit stops would be---in relation to a TOE---equivalent to such detail, actually much, much, much more removed from the theory than the movement of individual molecules in the swirling water from, say some kind of hydro-dynamic calculation.

We do, however, have an idea what the term "everything" encompasses. It is based on the assumption that everything builds on the particle world by means of their interactions, decays, reactions with each other and so on. So the claim of a TOE is not quite as hubrid as it sounds (it is arguably a little hubrid, though). Earlier attempts in this direction were e.g. the "Weltformel" (world formula) by Heisenberg et al. The difference is that nowadays the connection between the physics of the smallest known particles (leptons and quarks) and radiation and the largest structures in the universe (e.g. black holes & the whole Big-Bang cosmology) is known at least to some degree, which was much less the case in Heisenberg's days. Needless to say, anything outside of this picture would not be covered by "everything", but arguably one of the successes of modern elementary physics is that in fact it appears most phenomena >are< consistent with this picture and do not need assumptions of other effects.

I would certainly agree with your doubt that we are anywhere close to an actual TOE. I do not know enough to have an opinion as to the possibility of ever developing one, however. Whatever it would be, it would presumably be highly abstract and be many layers above the world directly accessible to our senses.


Your upload indicates that you saved as a Maple Workbook (.maple); a relatively new format introduced with Maple 2016 (I believe).  Older versions of Maple cannot not open this.

Unfortunately, Maplesoft in their (un-)wisdom elected to not let you save a Workbook as a Worksheet (the .mw format we are used to). At least I have run into this before where a worksheet accidentally saved as a .maple Workbook could not be re-saved as a Worksheet (.mw). I think I had to save as a text file (.mpl) and then read it back in.

Moral: watch what you are saving as & stay away from the Workbook if you have older versions of Maple in active use.



As a long-time user of Maple 15 (vs 2015) on Mac OS X I can ensure you that there is no such limit in the general case. I have had the kernel use more than 4 GB on a G5 (the Maple kernel runs in 64 bit mode on a 64 bit PPC) and even on a 32 bit G4 I have certainly had it use more than half a GB.

That said, Maple 15 certainly has a higher propensity of locking up than newer versions. Sometimes it is just longer run time, but I also had code lock up in Maple 15 that runs in, say, Maple 2016.

Give us an example. If it is a loop that locks up, there are ways to diagnose that. If a certain operation locks up maybe there is a way to diagnose it as well.

I have Maple 15 still working on a G5, so if you send an example I can try it.

Just my $0.02


Edits for spelling & clarity.

@Carl Love Ah, I did not catch that. For my immediate needs it is not a major consideration, but for some other projects it may become important.



@Carl Love Oh yeah, good old Programming Guide; obviously, how could I forget (I am serious here; the Maple Programming Guide is probably the most important Maple documentation/book).

So yes, it explains everything including the operator overloading as you mention.

I am still a bit doubtful about the improvement. Something akin to operator overloading in fact was already present in the previous approach (see Sec. 8.6 in the Programming Guide) even if it is called rebinding and explicitly claimed to not be overloading. But with the option overload (or using the specific function overload()), it seems to me the effect should be very close to overloading, which in my book means that depending on the type of the argument, an operator does different things (presumably always meaningful in the given context).

Still diggin'

Mac Dude


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Last Page 4 of 37