@hojat You need to post the new code for which you claim to have changed Gamma to GAMMA. I see 32 Gammas in the code above.

@ecterrab The MathML operator mn does it correctly, printing an unary negation symbol at about half the width of the binary:

`#mn("-1");`;

So, since the functionality to print the correct symbol already exists in Maple, I'd think that this would be fairly easy to fix.

Your worksheet works for me without any changes. Use the !!! on the toolbar to execute the worksheet in order, from the beginning, starting with restart. I get this plot:

The determinant is large, but Maple can easily handle it.

@ecterrab Here it is. While I do think the unary minus sign is too long, I would not say that this is "absurdly" long. That may have been corrected, and it may have been only a problem of the MaplePrimes rendering rather than the Maple GUI.
 

Download UnaryNegation.mw

@acer Doesn't there exist some somewhat user-friendly menu- / Maplet-based tools for fine-tuning the typesettings? Perhaps they are limited to functions though, just like the older `print/...` mechanism.

@Greenwaldian If you also want the axes themselves to be thicker, then include the option 

'axis'= ['thickness'= 2]  #Note: 'axIs', not 'axEs'

in the setoptions3d or directly in the plotting command. The 2 can be adjusted larger or smaller, as needed, and isn't limited to integer values.

I don't understand the probability split (1/7, 8/21). I think that you made a typo, and that that was meant to be (3/11, 8/11). So, you could improve the code by including an automatic check that the sum at each node is 1.

@C_R I'm not sure here, but I think that the problem that you're describing is that plots as a whole appear too small on very high resolution displays (such as QHD). But I think that the OP's problem is only that the fonts in the plots appear too small.

I've noticed for years that the symbol for unary negation in prettyprinted output is often (but not always) absurdly long and sticks out like a sore thumb. I'd also prefer it to be moved to the right, closer to its operand. When I read these, for a fraction of a second I mistake it for a binary operator with a missing (or NULL) left operand.

What do you think the height of the unary negation operator should be? I think somewhere between 1/4 to 1/3 of a line-space down from the top line would be best. Currently it's halfway down, which also contributes to it looking like a binary rather than an unary operator. 

@Carl Love The comments and expository introductory text of my originally posted worksheet above incorrectly used the graph-theory term minimal dominating set where I should've used minimum dominating set. Although it offends my sense of English grammar---which says that minimal is nothing more than the adjectival form of the noun minimum---the usage of these as distinct terms in graph theory is apparently well established. A minimum dominating set of a graph G is a dominating set of the smallest size of any dominating set of G. A minimal dominating set is one no proper subset of which is a dominating set of G. (Thus, a minimum dominating set is necessarily minimal, but not the converse.)

This error was only in my text and comments; there was no error in the code.

I also added a proof of the fundamental proposition that makes my algorithm work.    

@ecterrab Yes, it may be desirable to document that AllSolutions was required to get the output. I feel that that has been handled adequately by the input syntax. The output is meant to be a more-standard typeset mathematical display, and AllSolutions is Maple-specific syntax, not standard typeset math.

Do you just need to generate some random examples of the matrices with the given determinant? Or do you need them to be "fairly" chosen, e.g., each matrix with that determinant is equally likely to be chosen? What is the algebraic category of the matrix entries: integer, rational, finite field, etc.? 

@Timm Thaler Okay, asking for the radius of convergence with respect to free R makes sense. You originally had a specific value for R, making it not free. Using B=5 and N=1, I've tried elementary techniques such as the root test and ratio test, but I haven't found anything that works yet. 

So, I'm answering the OP's anticipated followup question before it's even formally posted:

Your series doesn't have any free variables. Neither the concept of radius of convergence nor power series makes sense without a free variable. Your series is simply a real constant; it's not a function, except in the trivial sense of a constant function. 

You can make a variable free if you want, and then ask again. The only variable whose "freedom" would make it a power series is R.

@MANUTTM Yeah, I already knew what you want. It's a much-deeper question than the simple syntax issue with the parentheses. I don't feel like working on it at the moment.