When I get a spreadshett output (Maple 2015.1/Win7, 64-bit) then it is fixed size, so I have to use scroll bars a lot.

Is there a workaraound - well, not that I have found

I'd put this one in the category of rather shoddy user interface capabilities, along with

1. inability to resize text in debug window a particular annoyance of mine because it has no workaround. (Reducing the resolution on my very expensive hi-res monitor makes the text bigger, but blurry - so isn't much of a solution)
2. inability to resize text in code-edit regions: which at least has the workaround that one can use an external editor to produce code (although it does make one wonder why Maple developers bbther with code-edit regions

because, unless I see some sign of serious thought on your part, this will be my last response on this topic.

Taking your latest post, point by point

You reach to the answer b[i]=0 and P=P.

I did not reach this answer: Maple did, because it is the mathematically correct answer for the set of equations which you supplied. You seem unable to accept this simple fact. Until you do, you will get precisely nownere with your problem

By changing the initial state (BI) and number of loops (N), various roots of EQs can be obtained in numerical methods, like Newton method.

EQs is a set of equations (for sake of argument suppose there are p equations), in a set of unknowns (again, for the sake of argument lets us suppose there are q unknowns). The only relevant information for the solution of EQs is

1. Are the equations consistent
2. Are the equations linearly independent
3. Assuming consistency, how many linearly independenet equations are there (<=p) in how many unknowns (still q)

Your statement above is irrelevant. The only thing which matters for the solution of these equations is how many are there, and in how many variables (assuming consistency). When you say there are "various roots of EQs can be obtained in numerical methods, like Newton method." This statement is logically incorrect - also know as downright wrong.

1. If you have 11 consistent, linearly independent, equations in 11 unknowns, then this will have precisely one solution.
2. If you have 12 consistent equations in 11 unknowns, then they cannot be linearly independent, but will still have precisely one solution
3. If you have 11 consistent, linearly independent, equations in 12 (or more) unknowns, then (generally) you will have an infinite number of solutions

In this context, reference to concepts such as "initial state", "number of loops", "Newtons method" are all pointless and irrelevant: stop doing it.

You have p equations in q unknowns: simply list the p equations and the q unknowns

But, by decreasing the number of EQs (number of EQs or nodes is arbitrary in problem), the various amounts of P can be obtained, as you can see in following attached file:

Fiirst of all I cannot see the attached file - it does not seem to exist. Secondly if you are reducing the number of equations then you must be reducing the number of unknowns (or perhaps sacrificing linear independence). But the remarks about whether such a reduced system has a solution  are essentially identical to the above: the existence/nature of such a solution depends only on consistency, linear independence, number of euations and number of unknowns        

Your last comment

When I take a greater value for m (say 20 for increasing the accuracy), Maple Can't solve EQs (or consumes unreasonable time); wherease for m=6, Maple returns some values for P.

doesn't make much sense - it would probably help if I knew what 'm' referred to. I'm guessing that it is the number of equations (although I have no idea why this woul increase accuracy), After all  the solution of 20 equations in 20 unknowns, compared with the solution of 6 equations in 6 unknowns improves the accuracy of what (exactly). Why don't you just skip all of the crap ad just post your 20 equations in 20 unknowns??

1. You originally posted a system of 11 equations in 11 unknowns and I posted a valid answer: this answer is mathematically correct
2. vv pointed out ( quite correctly, and I should have observed:-(   ) that for all b[i]=0, then the system can be solved for any value of P. So your original system of 11 equations in 11 unknowns has an infinte number of solutions. This response is mathematically correct
3. You then state that these answers

   This is not, what I seek for that.

   There is many answers (dependent to BI and N),

   Well mathematics does not care "what you seek". And we seem to agree that there are many (I would say an infinite number) of soltuions to your original problem. The difficulty you seem to have is specifying your problem in a way which will restrict the number of solutions
4. You then say that you need " but I need i) positive and ii) minimum one between 1E4 and 1E7." I don't understand: what is positive and between 1e5 and 1e7?? eg P?, some (or all) of the b[i]. As vv has pointed out, provided all b[i]=0, then any value of P is a solution, so p=1e4, b[i]=0 is a perfectly valid solution - but i'm guessing that you don't want this one either!
5. You then start making comments such as "As you can see in follow, the amount of members of the set {b[1] ... to b[m]} approaches to zero and any amount of P is answer!" I have absolutely no idea what this means or what point you are trying to make
6. A similar remsrk applies to your comment "By decreasing number of equations to m (instead m+1) the minimum amount of P is obtained; however the numerical methods like Newton are not applicable for this case." I have read this everal times but I cannot make any sense of it - this may be a simple language difficulty, but if I can't work out what you want, then I can't help
7. Your last point "Is there a way to solve EQ in following attached file?" No, because you now have 20 equations in 21 unknowns - so my educated guess is that this system also has an infinite number of solutions
8. Recommendation: focus on the essentials of the problem. You have a system of m(?) equations in n(?) unknowns. Depending on the relative magnitudes of m and n, this may have no solutions, one solution or an infinite number of solutions. Forget comments such as "the numerical methods like Newton are not applicable", because this is irrelevant. Focus on how to solve a system of m equations in n unknowns

Since I cannot see any code, I have no concept of the aspects which may be causing trouble. I kindof agree with Markiyan, but I would have expressed it slightly differently, as in

1. If the system meets the criteria for solving  by Gaussian elimiation, then the required code is generally not difficult
2. However, many systems are not "suitable" for solving this way - and these have to be weeded out first. As Markiyan says it is possible to have no solutions, or an infinite number of solutions. Such cases have to eb detected and trapped.

You are not doing "symbolic computation with floats":you are not defining some kind of "inert" version.  By using backquotes you are defining a symbol which just happens to "look" like a float. Now that it is a symbol, you can do all sorts of interesting things. For example

diff(`1.5`^x,x)

does what you want, but what about

diff(`1.5`^x, `1.5`)

Note that with `1.5` defined to be a symbol, the returned answer is correct.

Having defined `1.5` to be a symbol, the only way you will get a numeric value again, is if you substitute for it: so you are going to end up writing things like

subs(`1.5`=1.5, myexpression)

I foresee a lot of confusion

@Al86 

Need to convert mf and myPoly from simple assignments to functions: this means that the syntax for calling these from the pdes has to change (slightly) as well. See the attached

pdeProbMod4.mw

@Mac Dude 

OP initialises a symbolic matrix

matrix10=sym(zeros(M*N,M*N));

but then 'popluates' it with symbolic entries later, using

Nxy=sym('Nxy');

and, (buried inside multiple loops/if constructs)

matrix10(i,j)=-8*Nxy*m*n*p*q/((m^2-p^2)*(n^2-q^2));

(S)he then does a couple of fairly simple manipulations involving the symbolic matrix10, which as far as I can tell *ought* to lead to a polynomial in Nxy, then solves(?) this polynomial for Nxy and converts the solution back to a numeric. To me this whole process looks a little doubtful, unless the 'polynomial' in question is actually linear in Nxy - which is not obvious (to me) from the code. (And as I said, I can't run the code, so I can't check)

If you think about the problem of translating Matlabl "toolbox" functions, I can see issues at two levels

1. For a "standard" Matlab toolbox, OP would just have "loaded" it in some sense and then call individual functions by name - nowhere in the OP's worksheet would the relevant code for the toolbox function occur! So how would the translator translate code that it cannot see????
2. Leaving aside the "visibility" aspect, the symbolic toolbox loads a lot of constructs which are simply unavailable in "standard" matlab. The latter cannot even perform meaningful differentiation and integration (except for the case of polynomials expressed as a vector of coefficients). Think of the "extensions" which the symbolic toolbox has to introduce just to enable these two symbolic operations - and then translate them - ouch!!

@SamNaval 

When I try to run you matlab code, I get the error message

To use 'sym', you might need:
  sym - Symbolic Math Toolbox

Error in testCase (line 165)
matrix10=sym(zeros(M*N,M*N));

Now I have a "vanilla" matlab - no toolboxes, because I cannot justify the expense. My past (limited) experience with Matlab->Maple translation is that it works reasonably well for "vanilla" Matlab, and OK for some toolboxes, because these are just groups of procedures, written in "vanilla" Matlab.

However the symbolic toolbox is a serious extension to "vanilla" Matlab, and I would not expect Maple to translate commands from this toolbox successfully

I think you have two options

1. Whatever calculation you are trying to perform - complete it in Matlab. Matlab's numeric capabilities are very good, and you seem to have a symbolic toolbox available. S why bother converting to Maple? What functionality do you require in Maple that does not exist in Maltlab installation
2. Rewrite you existing code in Maple manually - most of it look like matrix defnition and simple manipulations - can't see this option taking more than an hour or so - which might be considerably faster than trying to get the transltor to work

@Al86 

See the additions in the attached

pdeProbMod3.mw

@nm 

Use the help within Maple - after all why not?? It will tell you that you need to enter (for the example on the web page you specify)

#
# Calculate the quotient
#
    quo(x^3-2*x+3, 2*x^2-1,x);
#
# Calculate the remainder
#
    rem(x^3-2*x+3, 2*x^2-1,x);

Just cut/paste the above into Maple

@shadi1386 

As others have pointed out:

1. Maple has no "rulers"
2. However much you want Maple to have rulers - point number 1 applies: try to deal with it, because you cannot change it, and neither can anyone else

You appear to have 8 first order differential equations, but only 6 valid boundary conditions - see the attached worksheets for specific comments

BVproblem.mw

@Al86 

If you want to play with any/all of these methods I recommend reading the regression section of the Statistics help page

I have attached a revised version of the worksheet. This now has execution groups

1. which will return the fitted parameters for an model function which you choose to use
2. fit a polynomial of order 'd' to the data, where the 'd-value' is supplied by the user

pdeProbMod2.mw

@Carl Love and OP

Starting with Carl's "simpler" example, and can "simplify" even further and still generate the same error

restart;
solve( m*exp(-(m-1)*t)*d^2-theta+theta*t-theta*t-m*eta*(1-exp(-t))^(m-1) = 0, t ); #errors
solve( m*exp(-(m-1)*t)*d^2-theta-m*eta*(1-exp(-t))^(m-1) = 0, t ); #errors
solve( exp(-(m-1)*t)*d^2-theta-(1-exp(-t))^(m-1) = 0, t ); #errors
solve( exp(-m*t)*d^2-theta-(1-exp(-t))^m = 0, t ); #errors
solve( exp(-m*t)*d^2-(1-exp(-t))^m = 0, t ); #errors
solve( exp(-m*t)*d^2+exp(-t)^m = 0, t ); #errors
solve( exp(-m*t)+exp(-t)^m = 0, t ); #errors
solve( exp(-m*t)+exp(-t)^m, t ); #errors

Can't guarantee it, but any further "simplification" seems to make the error go away.

Also seems to be related to solve(), cos starting from the last/simplest above

restart;
eqn1:=exp(-m*t) + exp(-t)^m; #output looks OK
diff(eqn1,t); # seems to work
int(eqn1,t); # seems to work
solve(eqn1,t); # errors

This problem must have been around for a while because I get identical behaviour in Maple 18 and Maple 2015

This one has got to be an SCR (hasn't it?)

The good news is that I am running Maple2015 on win7 64-bit and I managed to install the directSearch package and have access to the associated help - so it is definitely possible: the bad news is that I can't quite remember how I did  it (it's an age thing!)

Some suggestions

1. I put the original directSearch download in C;/Program Files/Maple 2015/lib
2. I'm nearly(?) certain that when I tried to do the database conversion using HelpTools:-Database:-ConvertAll(); I got some rude messages
3. I think(?) I got round these by shutting down Maple, then restarting it using "Run as Administrator". Maple is quite particular about creating files in certain locations ( particularly in C;/Program Files/Maple 2015... - so you have to make sure that Maple (not you) has write privileges for this location. With Maple now running with administrator privilege, try the HelpTools:-Database:-ConvertAll() again
4. Until you have managed to create a DirectSearch.help file in the C;/Program Files/Maple 2015/lib directory, ignore the next step
5. Even when I managed to create a .help file in the afore-mentioned directory, I still did not seem to have access to the directSearch help files from the general Maple help. If memory serves (and at my age it doesn't) then I think that in the Maple Help window, under the "Products" option (in the top-left of the window), this had to be set to Maple, User Help - make sure that both the Maple and User Help entries in the sub-menu are checked. I can make my directSearch help disappear just by unchecking the User Help sub-entry

If you can't make this work based on the above and other suggestions in this thread - then let me know and I'll try a clean re-installl ( and this time mae notes when I'm doing it!)