@nm I don't understand why you wouldn't provide the example that reproduces the issue, if you already had it at hand when you originally posted.

I have a recollection of this happening for someone else recently. (Rouben R., perhaps)

IIRC, the cause seemed to be with a worksheet that had Vector/Matrix output, that was saved to .mw in Maple 2024.2.

Resaving in Maple 2023.2 (or, maybe, 2024.0...) removed the problem.

My guess was that it was something to do with new scrollable rtable display; something in the .mw tjat the Mapleprimes backend .mw renderer baulked at.

I didn't confirm exact detail by rigorous experimentation.

The following image is a screenshot from my Maple 2024.2 for Linux (ubuntu).

I have no Maple init file or style sheet in play.

The numerals in the above screenshot image appear exactly as they do in 2D Input in that session.

The Maple GUI's toolbar indicates that the font is DejaVu Serif.

That is the default for modern Maple on Linux, AFAIK.

@nm I use Maple 2024.2 for Linux, with no init file or hidden options.

The plot that you see in my posting is the result of right-click export-to-PNG, which I always do when inlining plots on this forum because the default bahavior of this site's back-end is to show 2D plots with gridlines (if not specified as false, even!) and low-quality jpeg.

@salim-barzani That is offensively inconsiderate to all the member's who have responded.

You could, instead, simply add any new content in a Reply/Comment to a Question.

Deleting the whole Question -- once responded to meaningfully -- is antisocial.

Why did you delete the original of this query, even after janhardo had posted a response with content?

As far as I can tell, you have deleted almost half of your original Questions of the past month or so, even after people have Answered or responded with useful content. Deleting (or editing to remove the content of) a Question, after someone has taken the time to Answer, is incredibly rude.

@Christopher2222 If your case only involves a few integers then why not use the syntax that is more likely to be quickly recognized and understood by you when you look at the code a long time from now.

@dharr fwiw, that could be collapsed to b::identical(10,20,30)

@mmcdara 
1) Starting in Maple 2021 (IIRC) the Warning appears when the local is implicitly declared in the procedure, ie. as of that version, Maple no longer just silently add/declares it. It's more about a reminder to the reader of the code that it's a local, than it is about it being more safe, IMO.

2) As the thickness increases so does the visual/rendered extent of the dashed segments. Once it gets very thick (perhaps relative to the window dimensions, etc), it might no longer appear as dashed.

Download ecdf_acc.mw

@Blanc The command matrix (all lowercase), the linalg package, and the rank command (from linalg) have all been deprecated in Maple for over twenty years. You should not use them.

Instead, you could use Matrix (capital M), the LinearAlgebra package, and its commands such as Rank and NullSpace.

Download solve_p_ex.mw

@Carl Love That's like the second example in my Answer, is it not?

You've got,
    Or(x = abs(x), -x = abs(x))
while I had,
    Or(C + abs(C) = 0, C - abs(C) = 0)

I'm sure that you'll know that I got there by something like,
   S := cos(x) + sqrt(1-sin(x)^2) = 0, cos(x) - sqrt(1-sin(x)^2) = 0:
   simplify(Or(S)) assuming x::real;

@janhardo It's part of the DEtools package.

You seem to have forgotten to load (from) that, in your use of the just the short-form name rifsimp.

@JoyDivisionMan It seems that Maple's difficulty stems from the zero point, and that one only has to break it there.

That can be done with two sets of assumptions (as opposed to my previous four), or with a split of the integral form at 0.

Download pdf_RV_02_split.mw 

This now seems like insight into why Maple (2024.2 at least) doesn't get the simple explicit piecewise answer to this problem. It may be that int itself is getting hung up. Ideally it would be able to get the explicit result without the manual split at 0.

ps. It is not necessary to also split at discont of PDF(r,t) and/or PDF(x,t), in order to get the nice explicit piecewise result.
pps. The portions computed from using such assumptions (ie, disjoint sets that cover -inf..inf) can be properly combined into an actual PDF that respects the support. Using assumptions is not necessarily just a trick. It's obvious that a result obtained under some assumptions is only guaranteed to hold under those same assumptions. This is why I used multiple disjoint sets of assumptions, that together cover the reals. How to join the results with piecewise (and why that'd be desired) should be obvious.

@JoyDivisionMan Note that the formula result for t assumed to be in -1..0 is the same as for t assumed to be in 0..1.

I didn't successfully achieve that same nice form directly, if I merged the assumptions into just the simpler combined assumptions x>-1,x<1 . There are other ways to get it from that, but the above seemed less awkward to me.

ps. You don't mark your Questions with your Maple version. Sometimes it makes a difference in what answer may be attained.