I have not used Explore command alot. Just starting to learn it. But I am stuck on improving the basic look of it.

There are way too much space between sliders and too much white space between the sliders and the plot itself. Also the fonts used below the sliders are too large and do not even know how to remove them or make the fonts smaller.

Looking at the help page, I do not see options to adjust these. But help pages are very hard to read to find an option.

Here is an example. I am using worksheet, with 100% default zoom.

Explore(plot((b+0.7)*sin(x/(a+1))/x+b, x=-4*Pi .. 4*Pi, view=-2 .. 6,gridlines),
        a=-2.0 .. 1.0, 
        b=0.0 .. 3.0,
        width=300,placement='top');

This is the output

I'd like to be like this

Overall, even though Explore works, I find the look of it pretty bad actually due to the above issues. It does not look professional and polished.

This is a big problem, because if there are 4 or 5 sliders, now one can not even see the plot itself when changing the sliders, because one has to scroll down to see the plot now and then scroll back up to reach the top sliders to move them.  Even on Large monitor.

Is there a trick to control the spacing between sliders and the main body which is the plot window? Removing all wasted white space and making sliders font smaller for numbers below the sliders or remove them will go long way to making Explore command output look better.

Hi there, distinguished audience,

Let f(n)=n²+n+41.

further, require n to be a positive integer.
Look at the cases when f(n) is a prime number, or a composite number.
Beautiful parabola patterns appear.
see attached

writeup_for_prime_producing_trinomial_final.pdf

I also look at the case when there is

n²+n+17.

see

Lucky Number of Euler -- from Wolfram MathWorld

I can be reached by email at

matthewcharlesanderson2@gmail.com

also,

https://mattanderson.fun

Regards,

Matthew

Dear power users, I have a question I would like to convert the "results" variable in the attached document into an rtable or matrix. How can I do this? Thank you for your time and help in advance PrimesQuestion.mw

t := (5/9)*Pi;
e:=tan(t) + 4*sin(t);

is -sqrt(3)  but how to make Maple show this?

This is what I tried

t := (5/9)*Pi;
e:=tan(t) + 4*sin(t);
convert(e,radical);
simplify(e,trig);
simplify(e,constant);
allvalues(e);

The command "is" and "identify" knows this

is(e=-sqrt(3));
identify(evalf[32](e))

In Mathematica, FullSimplify can do it.

Any suggestions in Maple to simplify like the above?

Maple desperately needs a new full_simplify() command.

Having to keep trying different commands by trial and error in the hope one works is not the right way to do things.

I am trying to run Python for the first time in Maple 2025. Below is my simple proof of concept. This code only produces the following output: a # (a is a variable that contains a Python list) I don't understand why the python list which is assigned to variable "a" is not being displayed? It appears that the variable "a" is not being returned to Maple. This is the code that is being run in Maple 2025:

restart;
with(Python):
Start():
Run("import numpy as np"):
Run("a = np.arange(10).tolist()"):
a;

I am trying to calculate the stability of my solution using this integral test:

U = 1/2 * ∫ u(x,t)^2 dx

Then I want to compute the derivative with respect to epsilon and check if the result is greater than zero or less than zero.

I tried to do it in Maple but it is not working correctly.

Also, I want to substitute random numbers for the parameters to test stability. I prefer to use simple integer values like 1, 2, 3, etc., not decimal numbers. When I try random values, sometimes the result does not evaluate or gives complicated output.

S-test.mw

I am trying to use the command try for catching errors. In the second case it does not work. Is there a way to catch the error in the second example?
I have Maple 2025.2

restart;
try : x:=0:1/x :catch: end try:#ok

try : simplify(convert(WhittakerW(7/3,1,hypergeom([1],[2],z)),trig))  catch : end try:

Does this symbol for equicalence exist in Maple ?  I can't find it in the pallets. 

If not is there a way of making it so I could add it to my favourites?

Example: For

ex:=(a+b*c)^2

I would like to get the following output

[`^`, [`+`, [`*`, b, c], a], 2]

I am mainly looking for "elegant" code (short but understandable).

If a one-liner is doable, which I doubt, I would be interested as well.

f:=subs(r=(sqrt(5)+1)/2,7*arctan(r)^2+2*arctan(r^3)^2-arctan(r^5)^2); 

The above expression is in fact equal to  (which may be obtained by the `identify` command). 
As the following worksheet shows, simplify(f); fails to do full simplifications and the result consists of the less simplified arctan(2/11), while simplify(f/Pi^2); succeeds in making full simplifications and returning the remarkably simpler form: 

Download simplify_a_constant.mw

Since arctan(2/11) can be expressed by the significantly more concise arctan(1/2) and Pi (that is, ), why didn't simplify(f); attempt to eliminate arctan(2/11) in the result to further simplify `f`?

In the attached file, I want to calculate the integral Q1. Numerically, this is easy to do in Maple. For theoretical reasons, the exact result pi/e is known. However, a contradiction arises between command lines (4) and (5). Command (6) is also unsuccessful, as its exact result is unknown. What am I doing wrong?

Download test.mw

is been a while i work on it but i can't figure out where is problem and even my solution is so far from it when numerically i tested , i got same outcome as the paper did maybe is  long but it is same and maybe have some typical different but they are same , the problem in here is that which when i substitue is not my answer i don't know where is my mistake ?

pde-te.mw

f18.mw

f19.mw

I recently attempted to Fourier Transform the LommelS1 function using Maple. After loading

restart;
with(inttrans);
[addtable, fourier, fouriercos, fouriersin, hankel, hilbert, invfourier, invhilbert, invlaplace, invmellin, laplace, mellin,   savetable, setup]

the command did not work on LommelS1, after several attempts. I then used the 1F2 hypergeometric definition of LommelS1, and tried
fourier (t^(mu + 1)*hypergeom([1], [3/2 + nu/2 + mu/2, 3/2 - nu/2 + mu/2], -t^2/4)/((mu - nu + 1)*(mu + nu + 1)), t, w)

and after about 6 attempts of restart thru to fourier(...), it finally gave me about 30 lines of output, which simplified to about 8 lines, then subsequently simplified symbolically to two final lines of output- but I haven't been able to reproduce the result since (after about 20 attempts), so it really makes me question the algorithm, its implementation and its stability, or am I missing something here??

The plot in the attached file only works if the complete function expression is entered. If only the function name is entered, no plot appears. What am I doing wrong?test.mw

Download test.mw

Dear All,

I am currently encountering an issue while solving my boundary value problem in Maple. The following error message appears:
"Error, (in dsolve/numeric/bvp) cannot determine a suitable initial profile; please specify an approximate initial solution."

This problem arises when I attempt to generate plots by varying the parameters λl, λu, βl, βu, etc.

Lamda_l_new.mw