In the unrelated discussion https://mapleprimes.com/questions/222768-Interrupting-An-Evaluation-Leaves-Mserver-Running
I asked Carl Love if he had an estimate of the number of builtin procedures in Maple.
Carl answered with the code you will find in the link.
His code came up with 316 and 320 in Maple 2016.2 and 2017.2, respectively.
He mentioned that the last one alphabetically was zip.
I happened to look up the help page for type/builtin and found the statement:

"It may be used with anames to list all builtin procedures. For example anames(builtin)."

So I tried:

AB:={anames(builtin)};
nops(AB); # 234 in Maple 2017.2
member(zip,AB); #false
op(3,eval(zip)); # builtin = 589 in Maple 2017.2
showstat(zip); # Works despite being builtin.

In Maple 2016.2 the corresponding numbers were 232 and 585.
So I'm left somewhat confused.
Apparently some procedures are less builtin than others? Does this just mean that the most difficult zipping is builtin, while simple stuff like the following is done by line 16 in the available code for zip?

showstat(zip,16..17);
zip(`=`,[a,b,c], [1,2,3]);

I have noticed that I don't receive e-mails anymore when contributions are submitted to my subscriptions.
I used to.
Has this happened to anyone else?

It is embarrasing to have asked somebody a question and gotten a reply you are not made aware of.

What to do about it?
 

In the help page for invlaplace we find the statement
"If the option opt is set to 'NO_INT', then the program will not resort to integration of the original problem if all other methods fail.  This will increase the speed at which the transform will run."

This statement is found in Maple 2017 and in Maple 8 and I believe in all versions in between.
Can anyone provide an example of a function F(s), where
invlaplace( F(s) ,s, t, NO_INT);
gives a different result (or works faster) than
invlaplace( F(s) ,s, t);
?
## It should be added that an identical statement is made in the help page for laplace itself.

Couldn't any question with title beginning with http be removed automatically? There has been quite a few containing nothing but spam.

In working on an answer to a recent question on MaplePrimes:
http://mapleprimes.com/questions/210948-Can-We-Trust-Maple

I noticed that in solving a "simple" system of two equations in two unknowns, potentially undesirable expansion occurs.
The two equations were only simple in the sense that the solving was very trivial, since the two unknowns occurred (almost) already isolated on the left:
eq1:=diff(x(t),t)=rhs1;
eq2:=1.2345*diff(v(t),t)=rhs2; #rhs2 is very complicated in the link given.
So in isolating I tried:
solve({eq1,eq2},{diff(x(t),t),diff(v(t),t)});
The resulting ode system took considerably longer to solve numerically than an unexpanded version.
It is trivial (of course) to do the solving without solve in this case.

Here is an extremely simple example, where the unknowns are already isolated, so that the equations themselves are actually the solution.

restart;
eq1:=a=b*(c+d);
solve(eq1,a); #No expansion
eq2:=e=b*(c+d)+f*(8+k);
solve({eq1,eq2},{a,e}); #Expanded:
                   {a = b*c+b*d, e = b*c+b*d+f*k+8*f}

Can expansion be avoided?