@Will: it also shows the bottle necks. Loading is 15 sec, but a dial up
is about 30 times slower in transfer (which does not count for access
and reading sources from other servers, but for sending to my browser).
Otherwise said: by the pictures and building the page piecewise locally
instead of sending it completely (30KB only) and some gimmicks.

It results in up to 2 min for loading a first page. Note that this may
not be used in subsequent views: if the browser is told not to cache
pages or content for security reasons on switching pages ... which is
my standard - and others do so as well.


@Bthur: sure. Hopefully your service respects it. It may allow profiling
anyway I guess. Just to give an impression: some colleagues careless
used Google Desktop (local on their PC and in the intranet zone). Until
the admin showed them internal blueprints on www, cached and to be
retrieved by the usual Google search (ok, you 'only' use Ajax from
Google's lib). My attitude: there is no free lunch and they live from
advertising using informations.

But it is just another thread not about Maple, but Mapleprimes ...

Well, this page is quite heavy weighted in functionality. And loading (and sending?) stuff from various sites (including tracking/advertising companies).

I asked 'my' admin to give it a shot (occassionally he works with Ajax), find appended what basically happens loading Mapleprimes and then this thread

loading_mapleprime.zip

This means: calls to 2o7.net (littel character "o", not zero) and offermatica, google and facebook (quite prominent caring for privacy, no?)

You can also see the loading times - for a fast fibre connection.

No answer? Thus that problem is still present I guess.

No answer? Thus that problem is still present I guess.

Yes, agreed.

And 1 comment on the nonsense of the board functionality; if sorting is done by "thumbs up" then your answer is before mine and if the day is passed one can not even see by the time stamps what happend through a discussion.

What an ingenious construct.

Yes, agreed.

And 1 comment on the nonsense of the board functionality; if sorting is done by "thumbs up" then your answer is before mine and if the day is passed one can not even see by the time stamps what happend through a discussion.

What an ingenious construct.

here is the old form of the mentioned thread, not fully, but when I printed it to a pdf (which is not possible for the new board, only for the 1st page it would work)

Smoothing_data_point.pdf

@Alejandro Jakubi 

Alejandro, the answer will be given by the users.

And just speaking for myself: I find it inconvenient to handle the new board or get a concurrent overview of content relevant for me, lost a lot of structuring valuable informations and can not see, that the local 'Google' helps me to retrieve it better than before. I can not even file to pdf, what I want. In its concurrent state I would never had a motivation to upload things which I former put to my 'blog' - nor I could subscribe to such of others. Much of the benefit and fun for me is gone and my interest in using it actively is still shrinking. But I am too tiered to argue on the brave new board anymore, mostly.

I am too lazy to type in from the pdf as well (OP: post as code, to allow copy + paste))

But he has {...}, a set, and 2 elements are equal, so there are 3 equation and a numerical
solver should stop then if being feed with 4 variables.

The correct way is to use 'solve' with 3 variables and check the 4the, no?

I am too lazy to type in from the pdf as well (OP: post as code, to allow copy + paste))

But he has {...}, a set, and 2 elements are equal, so there are 3 equation and a numerical
solver should stop then if being feed with 4 variables.

The correct way is to use 'solve' with 3 variables and check the 4the, no?

@afeddersen 

Joe Riel's example fits your q, he has q=1/2.

You seem to believe assume(t::posint) has any effect on DARA := t->log(t) but that's not the case.

@afeddersen 

Joe Riel's example fits your q, he has q=1/2.

You seem to believe assume(t::posint) has any effect on DARA := t->log(t) but that's not the case.

@Dave L :-)

By the way: at the usenet group comp.soft-sys.math.maple the thread 'A simple Fourier integral' by Mate is worth a SCR or vulgo: a bug report.

played with it and agree with hirnyk ... here is another way (sketched,
hope I made no error or special assumptions):

Define c by sigma2=c*mu, normalize the stuff, see denom is positive and
cancel common positive factors in the numerator, that finally gives a task
in c and phi:

2*(-1/2+c)*(exp(2)*c-c+1)*ln(exp(2)*c-c+1)+(-5*c^2+3*c)*exp(2)+5*c^2-7*c+2

Now plot (to see it is nice) and use diff(%, c), then solve for c gives
a symbolic solution, which is 1 and ~ 0.171 from which it should follow.


But nothing I would expect that 'is' has any chance for an answer:

Why should it? And if it would: I would not trust it. It is just a quite
wrong way to use a CAS.

played with it and agree with hirnyk ... here is another way (sketched,
hope I made no error or special assumptions):

Define c by sigma2=c*mu, normalize the stuff, see denom is positive and
cancel common positive factors in the numerator, that finally gives a task
in c and phi:

2*(-1/2+c)*(exp(2)*c-c+1)*ln(exp(2)*c-c+1)+(-5*c^2+3*c)*exp(2)+5*c^2-7*c+2

Now plot (to see it is nice) and use diff(%, c), then solve for c gives
a symbolic solution, which is 1 and ~ 0.171 from which it should follow.


But nothing I would expect that 'is' has any chance for an answer:

Why should it? And if it would: I would not trust it. It is just a quite
wrong way to use a CAS.