I think one can work with less Digits, cf  "Spouge's version for Stirlings' formula" p.5 in the pdf of
www.mapleprimes.com/blog/axel-vogt/computing-the-complex-gamma-function-using-spouges-formula

I think one can work with less Digits, cf  "Spouge's version for Stirlings' formula" p.5 in the pdf of
www.mapleprimes.com/blog/axel-vogt/computing-the-complex-gamma-function-using-spouges-formula

?

?

I think it is known for longer, not specifical for Watcom, but also for the old Microsoft MSVC6 (from where I learned that (think it was pointed out to me by Alec Mihailovs): the Maple libs where not found while playing with Open Maple and external callings, www.axelvogt.de/axalom/maple/maple-external/index.html).

Even if blanks are correct on Win, they do not always work properly - and there is no need to use that for directories (however other software vendors do such things as well ... even MS)

But it means, one can not over-write assumptions. Sigh ...

it works, if bookmarked (and that's how I enter the board) - I agree, it really should be in the menu bar!

I already care for that installing Maple (on Win), so I correct the default 
"Maple 12" to "Maple12" (can not remember the Watcom directory)

Uninstalling and using that is not much work (guess even your licence file
can be used again, if you keep a copy)

For usual Office programs a virus scanner at least could try to search for a makro virus ... as long as files containing binaries can be saved or other programs can executed (as the mentioned C compiler or the command shell) I would consider it as door, which is wide open ...

For usual Office programs a virus scanner at least could try to search for a makro virus ... as long as files containing binaries can be saved or other programs can executed (as the mentioned C compiler or the command shell) I would consider it as door, which is wide open ...

Actually I would like to suggest Carl DeVore ... or others who
did good work beyond that board, mentoring Maple at least in the
past.

And moreover some outing: I hate that, it reminds me a bit of
employee of the month at McDonalds (if you would do that in a
common German company the slaves would ... [I better censor it]).

Beyond - ahem - ahead all that and being pretty proud to do it
long before any dead line ... and without real intending of any
insultings to others ... and of course with not wishing any harm
for 'my' nominees! ... (or the others, sure) ... my suggestions
are ... (had to re-think the above again ... yes, it still stands):

Jacques C and Robert Israel and acer (in any permutation).

The reasons are:

- low costs for Maple
- I admire their contributions
- they are pretty sound
- reading them helps to catch substantials in Maple and
  underlying Math

(here only 1 permutation applies, which is obvious).

... of course I mean that choice :-) Glückwunsch für Joe Riel!

do not know Edwards & Larson, but Maple is right - may be they have it only for positive Reals, while Maple knows sqrt(-1), since it works over the Complex numbers regarding brunch cuts

The following sheet contains the reasoning and procedure for linear forms:

www.mapleprimes.com/files/102_affineEquivalence_linearFunction_MP.mws

Ok, it will ever be a matter of taste how to proceed, depending
on embedding and intention. And mine today would be not too much
puristic, something like done in Forster (how was/is with complex
Analysis) is fine for me.

Quickly introducing power series and exp is not so difficult and
the sketch of 2) or 3) above gives the derivative without much
pain.

Since monotony is evident you get log and after knowing you can
differentiate here its rule comes by 1 = (exp(log(x))' = x*log(x)'
by chain rule - or generally for differentiating an inverse.

However at some point one has to the work: he defines sin and cos
through exp(I*x) (yes, 1st semester), so the usual geometric view
has to be proven (no, not complex log, that is later and something
like in Cartan seems natural then).

More or less he quickly goes off the basic definition for f' and
one has the impression these lectures intend to enable physicist
quickly with their needs.


PS: the only book written by him that I do not like much is his
'Riemannian Surfaces'. It is quite 'dry' to read. The best I had
where notes on diff Geometry (Hodge stuff) in Italian, since he
wanted to examine that theme for PhD and it was easier to use
them than reading books.

Hm ... do you have now what you need or is something missing?
I lost the overview a bit ...