## 75 Reputation

12 years, 255 days

## Alrighht...

@vv

Very well. I guess I understand whats going on, Would just like to understand more of whats' happening under the hood with the proc command. I'll read a bit about on the help page. Thanks again for your help :)

## Too much...

Thanks, it works but besides recognizing the general formula for area "p" is defined, I'm almost completly lost on the methods this employs to find the answers.

What if the plot crosses the x-axis twise or trice? I have no idea how manipulate the proc. At best I recognize to change the initial matrix and the interval for the 'area' integration.

Isn't there are simpler way? I'm glad for your help but this is way over my head in terms of using Maple in this way.

Edit:
Yes, the datapoints for this is always going to be with the duplicate x-value

## I tried...

I'm not a native english speaker, how should I make it more precice in the title?

I'm genuinly just curious, not tryig to be annoying.

## Yes...

You're right. I tried making a spline from the data points and ended up over complicating the whole thing. It seems so easy to find the intersection with the x-axis by hand, but the whole point of using Maple for me is to "automate it"
If you look at the answer provided by @vv 1537 , it is too much automation for me. I can recognize the general area formula from it, but I have no idea whats going on with the proc commands sadly...

Thank you!

Hello Preben, Sorry I was in a rush.

My intent is to plot something with the result of these two rows of numbers multiplied respectively, which I think I have a handle on for now.

ThU 500's answer resolves my issue, But It was just weird as I've done it a lot of times for other rows in the way showed in my uploaded .mw file, and this was the first time it just showed me the two rows after each other instead. After seeing ?operators I can see that what i wanted was an element-wise operation. It was just weird as an * did the job for my other calculations in the same document and ~* was not used in those.

Thank you very much!

## The issue has been resolved...

It seems that while messing with the language settings for windows 10, the region was set to Denmark in stead of United States.

Maple apears to look into this region setting and sets the comma or the dot as the default... Americans use the Dot and Europeans use the comma, which is not very considerate, when the output of a calculation can't be copied into new calculations without making an error.

If you encounter this problem (I dont think it maters if you have Mac or Windows) go to the region settings (search region after pressing the windows button, or find it in the control panel) and set your region to be English (United States) then you can change the date and time settings, put monday back as the first day of the week to make the world spin right again.

Cheers @Doug Meade  for making me look in the right place!

Thanks!

## Maybe the windows default keyboard?...

That might be a posibility. That would also explain why it seems to be a global thing.

As said before, I'm running windows 10, which for some reason always starts up with the american keyboard. I have to manually change it to danish each time the computer wakes. This is a small anoyance, but its there nontheless, so I tried to make the default be the danish keyboard, which failed, and left a third option which is now just kind of there, see the picture below.

Is there a way to tell Maple to stop that goofery and just set it to always be a period? I can't see any benefit in the separator being a comma since that is used as a comand for other things.

If there is a way to globally force Maple to do this, I would prefer that in stead of undoing the keyboard stuff, mainly because I don't really know how I managed that in the first place..

Sorry for the life story, this seems to be a problem that needs some contex. I hope you can help!

Thanks.

## The thing is......

@tomleslie

It is very very weird. After my post, I went back and checked one of my older files. Here, the decimals were separated by a period. If I deleted the answers and reexecuted the file, (the !!! symbol) it would change all the answers to commas. So this must be some global setting, somehow...

I still haven't found a solution.

I have never had problems with the units package with(ScientificUnits) or with(Units[Standard]), so I dont think these have any influence.

Do you have any other ideas to solve this?

Thanks!

## Method...

Thanks for that!

So, I'll try and find what went wrong in the previous results.

Do you know if the original method I posted work though though? fsolving for R and XC like that?

## It works, but look at this:...

@vv Thanks, this works and I can see (I think) Why the fsolve at the end doesn't work. It's not needed to specify a range:

http://imgur.com/CPNuNTO

Something I don't understand about what you did, right after the uc:= , you manipulate with _Z1 and _B1 - what are these?

Thanks again! :)

## Yes...

That's it!

here's the result of what I meant using your code:

http://imgur.com/o6WRnAt

Becasue I'm getting numbers in degrees in stead of radians from previos calculations, I managed to confuse myself into a hole.

The method you posted to display the vectors is very neat, and works just as I wanted.

thanks for doing what you're doing!

## I see what you mean...

Yes! This is "cleaner" and I see what you mean with the skipping of the conversion factor. Both ways work for the purpose though, I guess its a matter of prefference. Thanks for also writing some explaining text along with the coding, makes it way better for us new users to understand whats going on.

In the link that Acer pointed to there was a response made to one of your posts, using a conversion factor though, but I'll copy it here for future visitors viewing:

f := (r,t) -> r*exp(t/180*Pi*I):
F := proc(z) polar(z); evalf(op(1,%)), evalf(op(2,%)*180/Pi); end proc:

F(f(4,45) + f(5,30));
8.923958373, 36.66193394

That also works! It looks like you can also add, divide and multiply with it.

Thank you,

/Krismalo

## good explination...

Whoah, Thans for taking the time to explain it so well.

After reviewing the diferent methods both here and on the thread that Acer pointed to, I have found a few ways I can apply on my work.

Your explanation helps with the general theme people are using to solve the problem, so again, It was very helpfull, Keep it up!

/Krismalo

## Good posts over there...

Thanks for pointing, There are a few usefull posts on that thread, one of which is quite close to that I needed.

/Krismalo

 1 2 Page 1 of 2
﻿