Thanks for the idea. I also tried replacing procedure WARNING with one that generates an error (so that I could catch it):

saveWARNING:= eval(WARNING);
unprotect(WARNING);
WARNING:= proc()
     saveWARNING(_passed);
     error "WARNING"
end proc;

Both this and your stopat method will catch WARNINGs invoked from Maple code. But neither catches those invoked from the kernel. Well, maybe they catch some from the kernel, if the kernel calls the procedure, but they won't catch this:

proc() option builtin= 1; end proc:
Warning, not a built-in function (`1`)

It would be nice if there was a kernelopts(warnlevel) (akin to interface(warnlevel)) such that sufficiently high values of warnlevel would treat some or all warnings as errors. It would make testing large pieces of code easier if one did not have to search the output manually for warning messages.

Another issue: Your debugger output made me suspect that there was an unevaluated function INTERFACE_WARN and corresponding procedure `print/INTERFACE_WARN`, but this is not true. Indeed, attempting a call to INTERFACE_WARN() causes loss of connection to the kernel.

Thanks for the idea. I also tried replacing procedure WARNING with one that generates an error (so that I could catch it):

saveWARNING:= eval(WARNING);
unprotect(WARNING);
WARNING:= proc()
     saveWARNING(_passed);
     error "WARNING"
end proc;

Both this and your stopat method will catch WARNINGs invoked from Maple code. But neither catches those invoked from the kernel. Well, maybe they catch some from the kernel, if the kernel calls the procedure, but they won't catch this:

proc() option builtin= 1; end proc:
Warning, not a built-in function (`1`)

It would be nice if there was a kernelopts(warnlevel) (akin to interface(warnlevel)) such that sufficiently high values of warnlevel would treat some or all warnings as errors. It would make testing large pieces of code easier if one did not have to search the output manually for warning messages.

Another issue: Your debugger output made me suspect that there was an unevaluated function INTERFACE_WARN and corresponding procedure `print/INTERFACE_WARN`, but this is not true. Indeed, attempting a call to INTERFACE_WARN() causes loss of connection to the kernel.

Even if the same Matrix constructor is used,

a:= <1,2;3,4>:  b:= <1,2;3,4>:  evalb(a=b);

                                 false

Even if the same Matrix constructor is used,

a:= <1,2;3,4>:  b:= <1,2;3,4>:  evalb(a=b);

                                 false

One wonders what Maple commands you tried.

It's a fascinating question that I'll have to think about. To make sure that the terms of the problem are absolutely clear

1. Is it a right cylinder?
2. Is it a circular cylinder?
3. Is it in 3-space? or higher dimension?
4. Is it placed arbitrarily? That is, can the axis be any line in the space from question 3?
5. How many points are given on the surface?

What is your desired output for n=26, p=2?

@Alejandro Jakubi There's plenty of room to fit all options on the top level.

@emma hassan The matrix/vector multiplication operator is a simple dot (.).

Are the values that you got for vectors U[1] to U[4] in the posted worksheet correct?

@emma hassan The matrix/vector multiplication operator is a simple dot (.).

Are the values that you got for vectors U[1] to U[4] in the posted worksheet correct?

@syn_burz I got no output and no message about the kernel, although it was obvious that the kernel had crashed. I'm using Maple 17, 64-bit, Windows 8.

@syn_burz I got no output and no message about the kernel, although it was obvious that the kernel had crashed. I'm using Maple 17, 64-bit, Windows 8.

What should the output be if the number is 26 and the prime is 3?

@cskoog Thanks. I posted my Reply primarily to find out what you just said.

Check the results of command kernelopts(version).