What error did you get? Perhaps more importantly, what exactly did you enter?

The following works even back to Maple 6,

M := Matrix([[-2,1,3],[-5,7*a,3],[5,-2,a]]):
values := [solve(LinearAlgebra:-Determinant(M))];
seq(LinearAlgebra:-Rank(eval(M,a=values[i])),i=1..nops(values));

acer

If your data is in a Vector (capital V, not vector) and if it is of size more than ten, then you would have to adjust interface(rtablesize) in order to get have all its entries displayed. See here for more detail.

I suggest that you go with the more modern Statistics and Vector, rather than the older deprecated stats package.

(This rtablesize issue comes up quite often. It ought to be a FAQ. And there should be a more convenient GUI setting for it.)

acer

If your data is in a Vector (capital V, not vector) and if it is of size more than ten, then you would have to adjust interface(rtablesize) in order to get have all its entries displayed. See here for more detail.

I suggest that you go with the more modern Statistics and Vector, rather than the older deprecated stats package.

(This rtablesize issue comes up quite often. It ought to be a FAQ. And there should be a more convenient GUI setting for it.)

acer

You might have a look at this thread on the Eee Pc. Installation tricks to solid state drives (or SD cards) might also work various other netbooks.

You could also look at PocketCAS.

If wifi or other wireless networking had improved much faster then we might have seen thin client solutions by now for portable CAS. But it looks more as if the advent  of hardware improvements to allow the big CAS systems to run on the smaller portables is going to happen first (and, maybe, instead of thin client solutions).

Personally, I wouldn't bother with python as the available CAS libraries are not as full-fledged.

It'll get interesting when PDAs get as much power as notebooks have now, in terms of speed/memory/storage. Will people prefer netbook size for doing serious math, or will there be a big need for small but useful CAS graphical-user-interfaces. Perhaps the next few years will tell.

acer

I agree that a key part would be to be able to adjust options quickly.

Sometimes I would like to be able to toggle interface options without cluttering up the worksheet in which I'm working. Often I don't need or want to have the interface control code appear in my original worksheet, as I'm just investigating and I intend to delete such toggled effects before I save. I usually open a new worksheet with a shared kernel, to get this overall effect. But it could be much easier and faster with a menu.

I also find that the Standard GUI's menus for this are too awkward. I don't like to have to go through Tools -> Options and then select the Interface tab. (And several useful things from the interface() command are missing in that tab, anyway.) I'd prefer to be able to add a quick launch "interface" button to a configurable menubar. That's modern technology, however.

I'd write customized context-menus, to get these effects via right-clicking in the worksheet. But I haven't figured out how to get context-menu actions to insert no output.

Other interface options that I'd like ready access to in Standard are rtablesize, warnlevel, and the ones which affect plot devices and options. Even labelling and labelwidth can sometimes serve a purpose in Standatd if adjusted alongside prettyprint. And then there is printlevel. And some kernelopts.

acer

I recommend using this site's Software Change Request form to submit descriptions and explicit examples of these typesetting performance problems.

acer

It's not altogether clear whether solve is not affected by assumptions.

> assume(x>1):
> solve( (1-x^2)>=0 ); # NULL

> restart:
> solve( (1-x^2)>=0 );
                               RealRange(-1, 1)

acer

It's not altogether clear whether solve is not affected by assumptions.

> assume(x>1):
> solve( (1-x^2)>=0 ); # NULL

> restart:
> solve( (1-x^2)>=0 );
                               RealRange(-1, 1)

acer

This below worked for me on Maple 11.

plot(sin(x), x = 0 .. 2*Pi, tickmarks = [[seq(i*Pi/2=i*Pi/2,i=1..4)],default]);

It also seems to work if more tick-points are specified than will fit in the specified range.

plot(sin(x), x = 0 .. 2*Pi, tickmarks = [[seq(i*Pi/2=i*Pi/2,i=-40..40)],default]);

The spacing() way did not work properly in my Maple 11 too. The fractions print as floats.

acer

This below worked for me on Maple 11.

plot(sin(x), x = 0 .. 2*Pi, tickmarks = [[seq(i*Pi/2=i*Pi/2,i=1..4)],default]);

It also seems to work if more tick-points are specified than will fit in the specified range.

plot(sin(x), x = 0 .. 2*Pi, tickmarks = [[seq(i*Pi/2=i*Pi/2,i=-40..40)],default]);

The spacing() way did not work properly in my Maple 11 too. The fractions print as floats.

acer

I used rationalize because I thought that he might be trying to do it part of it "by hand".

Thanks for noticing, about the two-argument arctan.

acer

I used rationalize because I thought that he might be trying to do it part of it "by hand".

Thanks for noticing, about the two-argument arctan.

acer

Do you mean that you want the solving method to not be implemented as a (new) procedure?

Or do you perhaps mean that you want f to be an expression rather than a procedure or operator? In that case, the function applications could be replaced by 2-argument eval calls, or unapply could be used to produce an operator equivalent at the start of the code. Eg, instead of,

> f := x -> cos(Pi+x) -x: # the input

> f(1.1);
                                 -1.553596121

could be,

> f := cos(Pi+x) -x: # the input

> var := indets(f,And(name,Non(constant)));
                                  var := {x}

> if nops(var) <> 1 then error "expecting univariate expression"; end if;

> eval( f, var[1]=1.1 );
                                 -1.553596121

> F := unapply(f, var[1]);
                             F := x -> -cos(x) - x

> F(1.1);
                                 -1.553596121

acer

Do you mean that you want the solving method to not be implemented as a (new) procedure?

Or do you perhaps mean that you want f to be an expression rather than a procedure or operator? In that case, the function applications could be replaced by 2-argument eval calls, or unapply could be used to produce an operator equivalent at the start of the code. Eg, instead of,

> f := x -> cos(Pi+x) -x: # the input

> f(1.1);
                                 -1.553596121

could be,

> f := cos(Pi+x) -x: # the input

> var := indets(f,And(name,Non(constant)));
                                  var := {x}

> if nops(var) <> 1 then error "expecting univariate expression"; end if;

> eval( f, var[1]=1.1 );
                                 -1.553596121

> F := unapply(f, var[1]);
                             F := x -> -cos(x) - x

> F(1.1);
                                 -1.553596121

acer

It's unfortunate that the help query, issued in the Standard GUI,

  ?:-

takes one to the `use` help-page instead of the more appropriate `colondash` help-page.

And, naturally, both those pages should mention each other.

It's also unfortunate that the query ?uses takes one to the `procedure` help-page instead of to its own dedicated help-page (or to an expanded `use` help-page).

acer