## 35 Reputation

1 years, 101 days

## Agreed...

I got it and I agree. Normalization process is alright the way it is and it's probably better not to mess with it.

I would like to point some other issues with the simplification process though:

Should be simplified simply as tan(x), shouldn't it? It's objectivelly simpler.

That leads to bigger problems in more complex expressions, for example:

The last form (4) is objectivelly better than (2) and (3), because it simplifies both cot(alpha/2) as a single tan(alpha/2). Terms are repeated less times

## Don't get me wrong......

Don't get me wrong, I love Maple and I prefer it in pretty much every aspect. I'm just having some trouble with simplifications.

It's not much a matter of preference, but instead it appears that Maple doesn't completely simplify some expressions, it "stops before finishing" the simplification process.

The last form (4) is objectivelly better than (2) and (3), because it simplifies both cot(alpha/2) as a single tan(alpha/2). Terms are repeated less times

## Another problems in 2023 version...

Ok, so the problem of simplifying sin(x)/cos(x) is solved in 2023 version, but:

Why doesn't Maple simplify things like that to tan(x) as well? How is 1/cot(x) simpler than tan(x)?

If I decompose cot(x) to cos(x)/sin(x), it does work though:

Isn't that weird, considering that both expressions are actually the same?

I would like Maple to always give me the simplest form, but maybe it's not very good at simplifying?

## @sand15 I'm still having proble...

I'm still having problems related to the way Maple "simplifies" things. Take another example:

O = (e + r)/cot(alpha/2)

Why doesn't Maple simplify it to (e + r)*tan(alpha/2)?

Since cot(x) is literally defined as 1/tan(x), it should simplify it to the simpler form of tan(x), shouldn't it?

I find it weird what Maple considers "simpler". I think almost anyone would consider the second form simpler than the first, but Maple insists on the first one.

We can make it even more explicit doing something like simplify(1/cot(x)), but Maple DOES NOT simplify it to tan(x):

How is 1/cot(x) simpler than tan(x)?

Notice that if I decompose cot(x) as cos(x)/sen(x), it does work though:

Isn't that weird, considering that both expressions are actually the same?

Maple seems to be bad at simplifying

## @ecterrab oh thanks God they changed it,...

@ecterrab oh thanks God they changed it, it makes some expressions so much simpler.