The fact that this can be easily added only furthers the frustration that it is not provided automatically for all users.

??? But you can already do this:

> convert(sin(x)/cos(x), tan);

tan(x)

The fact that this can be easily added only furthers the frustration that it is not provided automatically for all users.

??? But you can already do this:

> convert(sin(x)/cos(x), tan);

tan(x)

I have a "Top 10 Maple Errors" worksheet that I've made for one of my classes. I've now uploaded it and put it on a book page.

I have a "Top 10 Maple Errors" worksheet that I've made for one of my classes. I've now uploaded it and put it on a book page.

I agree with what you say, but in this case, not being able to simplify arctan(sin(x)/cos(x)), given the proper assumptions on x, is at least a weakness, perhaps a bug. Maple ought to be able to do this.

I agree with what you say, but in this case, not being able to simplify arctan(sin(x)/cos(x)), given the proper assumptions on x, is at least a weakness, perhaps a bug. Maple ought to be able to do this.

1) You're using Document mode and 2D Math input. Unless you need it, why not use Worksheet mode and 1D Maple input, where you can see what is Maple input and what isn't? In particular, it's much better for programming. 2) Comments with # are really old-style, appropriate for command-line Maple or worksheets in early releases of Maple V, before there were text regions. Apparently the document interface can't handle them correctly, but there's no need to use them. Use text regions instead. But do I understand you correctly, that you didn't have those comments in the file before you uploaded it? Were they text regions before, and Maple converted them into comments in 2D math? That would be a rather bad bug.

1) You're using Document mode and 2D Math input. Unless you need it, why not use Worksheet mode and 1D Maple input, where you can see what is Maple input and what isn't? In particular, it's much better for programming. 2) Comments with # are really old-style, appropriate for command-line Maple or worksheets in early releases of Maple V, before there were text regions. Apparently the document interface can't handle them correctly, but there's no need to use them. Use text regions instead. But do I understand you correctly, that you didn't have those comments in the file before you uploaded it? Were they text regions before, and Maple converted them into comments in 2D math? That would be a rather bad bug.

For "X = " X output:

> printf("X = %a\n",X);

For the max of a list W of numbers:

> max(op(W));

For "X = " X output:

> printf("X = %a\n",X);

For the max of a list W of numbers:

> max(op(W));

There is no function called "atan" in Maple. The name is arctan. Why doesn't it simplify arctan(tan(x)) to x? For one thing, because arctan(tan(x)) is not the same thing as x, unless x is in the interval -Pi/2 to Pi/2 (try plotting it). So you have to either use the symbolic option (which is not recommended, as you don't know what assumptions Maple will actually use in any given instance) or give it assumptions, e.g.

> simplify(arctan(tan(x))) assuming x > - Pi/2, x < Pi/2;

Why doesn't it simplify arctan(sin(x)/cos(x)) to x, even with the proper assumptions? I don't know: simplify has its limitations. You could do this:

> expr:= arctan(sin(x)/cos(x));
  expr:= convert(expr, tan);
  simplify(expr) assuming x > - Pi/2, x < Pi/2;

There is no function called "atan" in Maple. The name is arctan. Why doesn't it simplify arctan(tan(x)) to x? For one thing, because arctan(tan(x)) is not the same thing as x, unless x is in the interval -Pi/2 to Pi/2 (try plotting it). So you have to either use the symbolic option (which is not recommended, as you don't know what assumptions Maple will actually use in any given instance) or give it assumptions, e.g.

> simplify(arctan(tan(x))) assuming x > - Pi/2, x < Pi/2;

Why doesn't it simplify arctan(sin(x)/cos(x)) to x, even with the proper assumptions? I don't know: simplify has its limitations. You could do this:

> expr:= arctan(sin(x)/cos(x));
  expr:= convert(expr, tan);
  simplify(expr) assuming x > - Pi/2, x < Pi/2;

But, how does this make the entries, {a,b,c,d}, of A be x-multiples of elements in the ring, R?

The members of the ring R are all of the form r = m + nx where m and n are integers. Since x^2=0, rx = mx. So if rx = 0, m=0 which means r = nx is a multiple of x.

In my ring, R, there are no zero-divisors and no nilpotents.

Ah, R is an integral domain. That changes things considerably. I haven't found a counterexample yet, and suspect it may be true, at least in the case n=2. This looks like a good question to ask in the sci.math.research newsgroup.

For example, in Maple 11.02 Standard Worksheet under Windows,

> M := <<x^2,1>|<1/x,x>>;

I highlight the output, copy with Ctrl-C, and it pastes in here as M := Matrix(2, 2, {(1, 1) = x^2, (1, 2) = 1/x, (2, 1) = 1, (2, 2) = x}) which within maple tags becomes M := Matrix(2, 2, {(1, 1) = x^2, (1, 2) = 1/x, (2, 1) = 1, (2, 2) = x}) The output of the same command in Classic pastes as M := RTABLE(149415796,MATRIX([[x^2, 1/x], [1, x]]),Matrix) which within maple tags becomes M := RTABLE(149415796,MATRIX([[x^2, 1/x], [1, x]]),Matrix) Another reason for preferring Classic?

For example, in Maple 11.02 Standard Worksheet under Windows,

> M := <<x^2,1>|<1/x,x>>;

I highlight the output, copy with Ctrl-C, and it pastes in here as M := Matrix(2, 2, {(1, 1) = x^2, (1, 2) = 1/x, (2, 1) = 1, (2, 2) = x}) which within maple tags becomes M := Matrix(2, 2, {(1, 1) = x^2, (1, 2) = 1/x, (2, 1) = 1, (2, 2) = x}) The output of the same command in Classic pastes as M := RTABLE(149415796,MATRIX([[x^2, 1/x], [1, x]]),Matrix) which within maple tags becomes M := RTABLE(149415796,MATRIX([[x^2, 1/x], [1, x]]),Matrix) Another reason for preferring Classic?