I think the transformation would be more easily done if there were a command to turn exp(t) + exp(-t)  into  exp(t)*(1 + exp(-2*t)), something like that:

forcefulfactorization( exp(t) + exp(-t), exp(t) ) assuming t::real;
                        exp(t) (1 + exp(-2 t))

maybe a command like that does exist?

I realize the above factorization can be obtained in a number of roundabout ways, e.g. multiplying and dividing by exp(t) simultaneously -- more useful would be a command that could be used with others such as collect, convert, simplify -- perhaps a smart way of using collect?

I think the transformation would be more easily done if there were a command to turn exp(t) + exp(-t)  into  exp(t)*(1 + exp(-2*t)), something like that:

forcefulfactorization( exp(t) + exp(-t), exp(t) ) assuming t::real;
                        exp(t) (1 + exp(-2 t))

maybe a command like that does exist?

I realize the above factorization can be obtained in a number of roundabout ways, e.g. multiplying and dividing by exp(t) simultaneously -- more useful would be a command that could be used with others such as collect, convert, simplify -- perhaps a smart way of using collect?

some questions may be unclear or difficult or posted at the wrong time, my advice to you if your questions do not elicit answers after a week or so is to attempt a rephrasing of your question. It's probably acceptable to post a question several times as long as you don't do it twice within a week. One good habit is to produce minimal examples of your problem. Also, you will usually get more feedback if you can squeeze your question within the post -- not everyone has the time/patience to open a worksheet (I, for one, rarely open attached worksheets because they tend to be in the standard format which often takes forever to load) In this particular post, your question is not immediately clear -- I have no idea what you're asking, perhaps it's a difficult topic.

some questions may be unclear or difficult or posted at the wrong time, my advice to you if your questions do not elicit answers after a week or so is to attempt a rephrasing of your question. It's probably acceptable to post a question several times as long as you don't do it twice within a week. One good habit is to produce minimal examples of your problem. Also, you will usually get more feedback if you can squeeze your question within the post -- not everyone has the time/patience to open a worksheet (I, for one, rarely open attached worksheets because they tend to be in the standard format which often takes forever to load) In this particular post, your question is not immediately clear -- I have no idea what you're asking, perhaps it's a difficult topic.

your code contains incomplete statements such as

or

It could be that you're trying to avoid copying what is perhaps a very long worksheet, which is very sensible -- my advice is to produce a minimal working example of your problem and to copy-paste that working example in full, complete with all needed brackets and assignments.

your code contains incomplete statements such as

or

It could be that you're trying to avoid copying what is perhaps a very long worksheet, which is very sensible -- my advice is to produce a minimal working example of your problem and to copy-paste that working example in full, complete with all needed brackets and assignments.

this issue had been discussed here ... by me and you! I had totally forgotten about it.

this issue had been discussed here ... by me and you! I had totally forgotten about it.

yse i argee whti boht of yu.

is that close enough?

simplify( log( exp(t)*(1 + exp(-2*t))/2 )) assuming t::real;
                    -ln(2) + t + ln(1 + exp(-2 t))

is that close enough?

simplify( log( exp(t)*(1 + exp(-2*t))/2 )) assuming t::real;
                    -ln(2) + t + ln(1 + exp(-2 t))

I concur with Jacques, these guidelines are very carefully worded and make sense.

I do have a comment to make about the suggestion that grammar and spelling may be edited by moderators. At the time of writing I don't think that's a good idea. We could easily get into a situation where one moderator changes "math" to "maths", another moderator reverses the change, while the poster watches in amazement. Certain posters are clearly translating from Chinese into English using software, producing hilarious text, but I think that's okay, that's the wonder of the internet. I'd say that editing by moderators should be limited to things like html code and maple tags.

I suppose you could offer an option like "would you like your grammar and spelling to be corrected by a mapleprimes moderator?", but at this time I don't think it's necessary.

My intuition suggests that you could be opening a pandora box you don't want to open with this grammar/spelling issue.

I am relieved, thanks Bryon, will sleep now,

Patrick.

no solutions found, that's what infolevel says, but it also says "2 solutions found" at an earlier stage, which must be the "lost solutions" referred to at the end ... why? I don't know!

no solutions found, that's what infolevel says, but it also says "2 solutions found" at an earlier stage, which must be the "lost solutions" referred to at the end ... why? I don't know!