@Carl Love 

See e.g. Helmer Aslaksen, Can your computer do complex analysis?, Theorem 2, formulas 16 and 17, for the conditions in mathematical sense.

@Carl Love 

See e.g. Helmer Aslaksen, Can your computer do complex analysis?, Theorem 2, formulas 16 and 17, for the conditions in mathematical sense.

@mank 

Just an observation, probably not of much help. While an statement like 1+1+2^3; is computed directly in the kernel (by automatic simplification), something like int(x, x=0..1); involves also Maple library routines. Could it be a problem of access to the library when using this API?

And does Maple 16 evaluate the integral? (using its own interface). 

@rlopez 

I mean using exported input in the RTF file (rather than the exported output), inserting it into the equation editor. At this moment I am on Linux, and I have LibreOffice Writer at hand. So, take it mutatis mutandis. I copy the rhs of the input line:

(-exp(-alpha*x))/(2*eta^3)

and pasted it into the equation editor. Massaged it a bit into:

(-e^{(-%alpha x)}) over (2 %eta^3)

And got:

The exported output (in image format) may be used for guidance when writing the code in the equation editor, and then discarded.

About interoperability of math formats, presumably MathML (rather than LaTeX) should be the way. It may be worth trying also. Maple can generate (some kind of) MathML code and Word processors can import (some kind of) MathML code...

I observe this error also in several earlier versions of Maple (15.01, 14.01, 13.02). And my guess is that the "patch" is Maple 17...

I observe this error also in several earlier versions of Maple (15.01, 14.01, 13.02). And my guess is that the "patch" is Maple 17...

@acer 

No, it was not a formal announcement. But the answer by a Maplesoft person amounts to a de facto announcement (if there was no earlier one).

Since March, I think. See e.g. here.

@maple fan 

I beleive that the property MutuallyExclusive is probably useless, as the information about its location in the property lattice is the minimal one, and there is no definition or description for it:

> about(MutuallyExclusive);
MutuallyExclusive:
  a known property having {property} as immediate parents
  and {BottomProp} as immediate children.

> `property/object`[MutuallyExclusive];
                       property/object[MutuallyExclusive]
> `property/Description`[MutuallyExclusive];
                    property/Description[MutuallyExclusive]

So, it sounds to me as work started many years ago and never carried out.

I agree, no such problem occurs for the second computation in Maple 15 and earlier. Yet, I wonder whether that earlier output is desirable:

> z2 := simplify(z);
       _    2  2         _    2  2                    2  2   _ _
z2 := (f | u  y  | v x + f | v  x  | u y + G u v x | w  y  | u y
                  2  2   _ _    /   _ _   _ _      2  2            2  2
     + G u v x | w  y  | v x)  /  ((u y + v x) (| u  y  | v x + | v  x  | u y))
                              /

Note, on the other hand, that there is an alternative (or workaround) for Maple 16 and 17 which sidesteps the problematic routines (`simplify/conjugate` and family):

> z2 := simplify(z,size);
                                         _ _   _
                                     G w w y + f
                               z2 := -----------
                                      _ _   _ _
                                      u y + v x

This output looks more reasonable to me. May be that simplify without option size should return also the same. 

@Carl Love 

Yes, it is Joe's Maple Debugger Client/Server. I strongly recommend you to try it. Note however that the post and the linked mdcs version is not quite updated.

@Carl Love 

Yes, it is Joe's Maple Debugger Client/Server. I strongly recommend you to try it. Note however that the post and the linked mdcs version is not quite updated.

How would you represent lists with sublists as strings?

How would you represent lists with sublists as strings?