this is one of those subjects of Mathematics that physicists learn in Physics courses (because mathematicians do not teach them). Typically, identify the symmetries of the system and choose coordinates "adapted"  to these symmetries  so that eg. the  dependency  of the functions, the components of the vector fields and the limits of the integrals, when transformed to such coordinates, take the simplest form.

No systematic theory is normally used to convey these techniques, but much of it is basically use of invariance under discrete and Lie groups.

On clicking on this site, I have received warnings and error messages from http://maplenetbeta.maplesoft.com.

And sometimes I have got it produce an answer, but  sometimes not. In  particular, with your integral, I  have  received  on occasions  this error  message:

The page at http://maplenet.maplesoft.com says:
Errors occured while processing the latest request:
(inPreprocessorTab[_XML_mrow]) invalid subscriptor selector

On clicking on this site, I have received warnings and error messages from http://maplenetbeta.maplesoft.com.

And sometimes I have got it produce an answer, but  sometimes not. In  particular, with your integral, I  have  received  on occasions  this error  message:

The page at http://maplenet.maplesoft.com says:
Errors occured while processing the latest request:
(inPreprocessorTab[_XML_mrow]) invalid subscriptor selector

You can add them to the help database. See ?makehelp.

You can add them to the help database. See ?makehelp.

See Coordinate Geometry

I was unaware of this site. I see that Maple appears in this graph . I have not seen  that they host wikis besides the main one, but otherwise it appears to me a valid option to contact. Semantic web is mentioned here, but I do not know yet, in concrete terms for a Maple wiki what advantage would provide such a thing.

If we go to start from scratch, it would make sense to look at pro and cons of suitable hosts (oriented both to math and computer software). I guess that there should be a few.

Yes, more freedom would come at the price of more work. If there were consensus on this, it is OK.

From the posts cited above, the situation, as I see it, is the following:

1. A Maple wiki is regarded as necessary both by Maplesoft and the community.

2. An official Maple wiki is unlikely.

3. There is already an unofficial Maple wiki in WikiBooks.

So, either we continue asking for a wiki some more years or go to an
unofficial wiki (John's post could be read in this sense).

The answer "go to an unofficial wiki" leads to the next question: this
WikiBook or a new wiki?

I hardly have experience myself on these issues (beyond editing a little bit at
Wikipedia), but my guess is that starting a wiki from scratch involves much more
work than editing on something that already exists. So, I have looked at this
Maple wikibook.

Yes, it is pretty rough, pretty out of date, and pretty incomplete. The person
who initially edited the Maple wikibook, as stated based loosely on the site
http://alamanya.free.fr/, apparently "no longer exists" as an author in WikiBooks. Nevertheless, there is currently editing activity on this site.

So, it could be said, let us (ie comunity at Maple Primes) help improve this
site.

Yes, it could be a good idea, but I have found some issues.

For instance, there are some policies regarding wikibooks:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WB:WIW

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WB:PAG

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Wikibooks_for_Wikipedians

that restrict the possible content. Eg:

"The site should primarily be used for developing textbooks, textbook-like
books, and supporting book-based instructional materials"

"Textbooks are self-contained, meaning that the chapters link to each other
internally, but not to other wikibooks."

"As a general rule, Wikibooks modules don't contain as many links as Wikipedia
articles. This is because a book is supposed to be a self-contained resource
with a contiguous narrative. Links to all sorts of outside places can,
furthermore, serve as a distraction. Links to other resources should usually
be placed in a separate resources or bibliography section at the end of the
book or module."

This means, as I understand it, that some possibles uses of this wiki like
bookmarking to web resources or benchmarking are close to be banned.

Another, perhaps minor issue is where this wikibook is located within the
classification:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Computer_software_bookshelf

Wikibooks:Computer software bookshelf

Guides for minor (small user base) applications

...

    * Maple Development stage: 25% (as of November 22, 2005) (November 22, 2005)

By comparison, there is a Mathematica wikibook, even more sketchy, but located
at:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Programming_languages_bookshelf

Wikibooks:Programming languages bookshelf

Mathematica - Perl

    * Mathematica - Development stage: 00% (as of Feb 12, 2005) (Feb 12, 2005)


As a preliminary conclusion, it seems to me worthwhile trying to improve this
Maple wikibook, as a intermediate step towards a full fledged Maple wiki (if
such a thing ever arises). Things that could be tested during this stage
include the convenience of the latexlike syntax for expressing the Maple
output, organization of sections, control of vandalism, etc.



 

for display purposes:

eq1:=a+b*c+d*e+f*g*h+i*j+k;
convert(eq1,list):
map(x->[x,nops(x)],%):
sort(%,(a,b)->`if`(op(2,a)<op(2,b),true,false)):
map(x->x[1]*``,%):
convert(%,`+`);

for display purposes:

eq1:=a+b*c+d*e+f*g*h+i*j+k;
convert(eq1,list):
map(x->[x,nops(x)],%):
sort(%,(a,b)->`if`(op(2,a)<op(2,b),true,false)):
map(x->x[1]*``,%):
convert(%,`+`);

I think that a "long Beta period" is a necessary but not sufficient condition to uncover design flaws in such a complex system. May be that very few betatesters will not be able to uncover them in any realistic period.

I think that a "long Beta period" is a necessary but not sufficient condition to uncover design flaws in such a complex system. May be that very few betatesters will not be able to uncover them in any realistic period.

Thank you for this link.

Thank you for this link.