435 Reputation

12 Badges

5 years, 302 days
Maple is to me difficult. The first version I bought was Maple9, and it was more than 15 years ago. But, I couldn't use it, feeling it too difficult. But, three years ago, I thought Maple might be helpful to my study, and since then, I have continued to learn Maple. As I got able to read the Maple help, I think that I could get to use maple better now than before. But, I feel that I am a beginner yet.

MaplePrimes Activity

These are replies submitted by taro

I think it's splendid for there to be an office hour for maple users.
I hope it will become a busy one. 



The op's question contains diff. 
I didn't know that the way of writing in Document mode is different from that 
in Worksheet mode. For example, I didn't know that f'(1) which I thought at first means diff(f(1),x) is actually expressing eval(diff(f(x),x),{x=1}) in worksheet mode. 
Additionally, I didn't understand the way of op's image's last line of his output. I couldn't understand why eval(..) = 2 could be obtained in one line.
And, I couldn't understand how you could get 1(1) in the above answer. 



Thank you. My problem was solved owing to you.
I wrote the more detailed thanks to you and the result of my problem in the above reply to Mr. Markiyan Hirnyk. Thank you.

@Markiyan Hirnyk 

Thank you. My problem was solved owing to you.
Actually, what was I wanted to do was to put variables with the same exponent into the single variable,
with variables with minus exponent put into the denominator, like the file I appended.

Though knowing how to put variables in order, as there were two variables with the same exponent, 
I, at first, found it was difficult. And, before that, I thought I didn't know how to handle such as w 

in the first file I appended here, to which two of you gave me an answer.

Thank you. Owing to two of you, I could put the expression into the form I wanted it to be.



Thank you for your answer.

The problem I held was resolved, owing to you.



You can see the help page of maple as for Minor.
For example,


B := <<1,2,3,-4>|<5,6,-7,8>|<9,-10,11,12>|<-13,14,15,16>>;

seq(Minor(B, i, i),i=1..4);



Thank you for your answer.
Especially, your use of freeze and thaw was very helpful to me.

I owe you a lot.

On the other hand, later, I found the following codes works;

Y := -L*epsilon^epsilon*(1-epsilon)^(1-epsilon)*(-omega^(-1+epsilon)*k*theta+(1-theta)*omega^epsilon)/(1-epsilon-theta);
end proc;



Thank you.

I could obtain a lot from your direct substitution and the use of empty symbol" `` ".



@Rouben Rostamian
Thank you. I could resolve my question with you code.



munus 1 of the top of the expression is multiplied to the denominator of (theta -1) so that it changes to 1-theta.

So, two are equivalent. The reason I prefer the second is that the expressions in my note following the expression I wrote here have the same (theta -1) so that the terms have minus sign at the top, so I though I would change the first place
where it appeared, so that the following expressions are easy to deal with. I am supposing theta is a constant between 0 and 1. 



I found a typo. So, I want to report it to maplesoft.
Though I searched for such places with type and found this thread, I am not certain this is one.

In the term of evalindets in help page of maple 2016, there is the next example contained.

evalindents['nocache'](expr,symbol,proc(s) global count; count:=count+1; cat(s,count) end);

evalindents is incorrectly spelled. evalindets is the right one.

And, ex of


, which is written below the last one,

, I think, should have been written, intended to write expr.


The first way is

x:={b[1]=alpha*a[1]^6, b[2]=alpha*a[2]^6, c[1]=beta*a[1]^4+gamma*d[1], c[2]=beta*a[2]^4+gamma*d[2]};




which brings a solution, though including RootOf.


The second way is

k:= solve({op(x),y},a[1]);

But, this does not bring any answer, which I can't understand why.




Two ways to solve


that is




bring different solutions.

So, I couldn't understand your answer.




which brings 41/3 of OP.


Thank you for your reply.

with the change of preferences of maple in Precision, Round screen display, to 3
decimal places, I can get the view of an only 3 digit below a decimal point like this.

The meaning of my question is how to do the same without changing the preference
so that without exerting this modification on other calculation on the same worksheet, that is to limit this effect on only a part of various calculation.

I thought of this question seeing the difference of the expression of the original questioner's expression of the numbers, and your result of exact expression of the numbers.


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Last Page 4 of 22