maplematt

161 Reputation

5 Badges

11 years, 250 days

MaplePrimes Activity


These are replies submitted by maplematt

Thanks!

 

I did not use fsolve, but solve.

I understand using indexing, but the problem is that Maple reverses the order for seemingly no reason each time I change parameters then execute the entire worksheet.  So I would like a way to have Maple give all answers.

Thanks!

 

I did not use fsolve, but solve.

I understand using indexing, but the problem is that Maple reverses the order for seemingly no reason each time I change parameters then execute the entire worksheet.  So I would like a way to have Maple give all answers.

But what is the relationship between f and g?  Were you simply looking for a function for which one set of root would coincide with f?  Thanks.

P.S.   Maple 11 produces the same error.

I did report this.  Has anyone else experienced this?

Thank you.  I think having the startup file output a statement that reminds the user it has run is a good one, especially since it can avoid portability issues. 

Thank you.  I think having the startup file output a statement that reminds the user it has run is a good one, especially since it can avoid portability issues. 

Thanks for the input.  Your solution did what I wanted, but in a roundabout sort of way.  I still wanted a direct function definition that could take multiple inputs, so I came up with this:

g:= x ->map(x-> x[1] + x[2]^2,x)

g([ [1,8], [2,3], [3,5] ] )

          [65, 11, 28]

 

Which is what I wanted.  Thanks again.

 

Thanks for the input.  Your solution did what I wanted, but in a roundabout sort of way.  I still wanted a direct function definition that could take multiple inputs, so I came up with this:

g:= x ->map(x-> x[1] + x[2]^2,x)

g([ [1,8], [2,3], [3,5] ] )

          [65, 11, 28]

 

Which is what I wanted.  Thanks again.

 

I think I get what you are saying, I just never seem to know when maple is going to do what I expect it to do. Sometimes it does exactly what I expect, other times it doesn't. For example, as Robert suggested trying simplify, I did: > simplify(sin(x)^3/cos(x)^3) sin(x)^3/cos(x)^3 and yet Robert's example simplification above shows that this is equal to tan(x)^3 which to me, is simpler! I guess you just have to learn that though maple is brilliant, it is also stupid!
I'll give it a try.
I'll give it a try.
Hello, Thank you for your answer, but this is not quite what I need. You see, I need the output of the statement: Ttot := eval( someSolution, _C1 = 0); to be a new function that is still a function of x. I tried the old Ts := unapply(rhs(Ttot),x[3]); trick but got an error. Any other suggestions?
Hello, Thank you for your answer, but this is not quite what I need. You see, I need the output of the statement: Ttot := eval( someSolution, _C1 = 0); to be a new function that is still a function of x. I tried the old Ts := unapply(rhs(Ttot),x[3]); trick but got an error. Any other suggestions?
I got another tip on evaluating the solution to a differential equation: eqn := diff(y(x), x)+c^2*y(x) = 0; ics := y(0) = 10; sol := dsolve({eqn, ics}, y(x)); c := 3; eval(sol, x = 7); This also will evaluate the solution, but it is not as useful as having an explicit function defined. I just wanted to let any others out there know that there is more than one way to do it, like most things.
I got another tip on evaluating the solution to a differential equation: eqn := diff(y(x), x)+c^2*y(x) = 0; ics := y(0) = 10; sol := dsolve({eqn, ics}, y(x)); c := 3; eval(sol, x = 7); This also will evaluate the solution, but it is not as useful as having an explicit function defined. I just wanted to let any others out there know that there is more than one way to do it, like most things.
1 2 Page 1 of 2