It isn't clear, from the single example you gave, whether all  the given variables must be present. For example, would a+b  be  a polynomial that you would want returned  in your initial example L?

Also, your criteria could be that only names {a,b,c} must be present, or that all of {a,b,c} must be present. Your wording and sole example is ambiguous in this respect. And Roman's and Robert's code will behave differently in these regards (and neither would pick up a+b although we don't know yet whether you want that one).

> L:=[a+b+c,x+ab+d^3,y+c,a+b,a+b+c*d];
                                      3
           L := [a + b + c, x + ab + d , y + c, a + b, a + b + c d]
 
> select(f->indets(f)={a,b,c}, L);
                                  [a + b + c]
 
> select(t -> has(t,a) and has(t,b) and has(t,c), L);
                           [a + b + c, a + b + c d]
Hence it was not clear whether you might have wanted either of these.
> select(f->(indets(f) minus {a,b,c})={}, L);
                              [a + b + c, a + b]
 
> select(f->({a,b,c} minus indets(f))={}, L);
                           [a + b + c, a + b + c d]

I have not yet investigated it carefully, but I guess that when an rtable (Array or Matrix of Vector) is "grown" the system always increases the size by more than just a single spot. It might grow the rtable by a minimum of a percentage (10%, or whatever).

This could be tested, by carefully repeating a loop like Robert's (but always inserting 0, immediate integer, or a previously simpl'd value) and checking for the sizes at which bytesalloc increases.

If you want to increase by 50 entries, then simply assign to the entry at current -size+plus+50 (I think!?).

I have not yet investigated it carefully, but I guess that when an rtable (Array or Matrix of Vector) is "grown" the system always increases the size by more than just a single spot. It might grow the rtable by a minimum of a percentage (10%, or whatever).

This could be tested, by carefully repeating a loop like Robert's (but always inserting 0, immediate integer, or a previously simpl'd value) and checking for the sizes at which bytesalloc increases.

If you want to increase by 50 entries, then simply assign to the entry at current -size+plus+50 (I think!?).

> op([op(3,eval(Optimization:-Interactive))][-1]);
                              tools/gensym(BC)

> op([op(3,eval(Optimization:-Interactive))][-1]);
                              tools/gensym(BC)

I see now, sorry, I had undertood it all backwards.

I don't know how to get that.

It reminds me of something. A while back I tried to write a report in Document mode. I wanted to make it look like a journal article. I wanted equation labels which I could refer to, when citing the earlier formulae. But all I got was Active Math. And what I wanted were labelled math formulae that did not change when I hit the triple-exclam to run the sheet. Ideally, it ought to be possible to insert labelled math equations which are both inert and which also contain the symbolic names of previously assigned variables. I couldn't figure out how to get that, without resorting to a whole bunch of quoting-hacks, which was disappointing.

Scratch "ideally". I meant "usefully".

I see now, sorry, I had undertood it all backwards.

I don't know how to get that.

It reminds me of something. A while back I tried to write a report in Document mode. I wanted to make it look like a journal article. I wanted equation labels which I could refer to, when citing the earlier formulae. But all I got was Active Math. And what I wanted were labelled math formulae that did not change when I hit the triple-exclam to run the sheet. Ideally, it ought to be possible to insert labelled math equations which are both inert and which also contain the symbolic names of previously assigned variables. I couldn't figure out how to get that, without resorting to a whole bunch of quoting-hacks, which was disappointing.

Scratch "ideally". I meant "usefully".

Just plot it, and use the available features. See ?pointplot3d (perhaps using its color option to specify the shade for each point using the value of the corresponding Array entry), or the plot3d options for shading and transparency (and animated visualization paths).

Just plot it, and use the available features. See ?pointplot3d (perhaps using its color option to specify the shade for each point using the value of the corresponding Array entry), or the plot3d options for shading and transparency (and animated visualization paths).

You've posted an image that looks like a 3D scene using special effects like in the Matrix movies. That doesn't make it a "3D Matrix" in a common mathematical sense.

Yes, images can be stored in 3D Arrays in Maple. In principal, you can use Maple to lay down any data into such an image structure as you want -- including an image of a discretized 3D scene with perspective -- since it's all numbers in the end.

What you've asked makes as much sense to me as would asking whether MapleSim can make one of these.

You've posted an image that looks like a 3D scene using special effects like in the Matrix movies. That doesn't make it a "3D Matrix" in a common mathematical sense.

Yes, images can be stored in 3D Arrays in Maple. In principal, you can use Maple to lay down any data into such an image structure as you want -- including an image of a discretized 3D scene with perspective -- since it's all numbers in the end.

What you've asked makes as much sense to me as would asking whether MapleSim can make one of these.

Matrix(ArrayTools:-Reshape(Statistics:-Sample(Normal(0,1),4),2,2))+
Matrix(I*ArrayTools:-Reshape(Statistics:-Sample(Normal(0,1),4),2,2),shape=hermitian);

Matrix(ArrayTools:-Reshape(Statistics:-Sample(Normal(0,1),4),2,2))+
Matrix(I*ArrayTools:-Reshape(Statistics:-Sample(Normal(0,1),4),2,2),shape=hermitian);

I found the way you placed claims into the mouth of another person --by piecing together bits of sentences that were originally very separate and unconnected -- to be dishonest, and I was offended by it.

Why on earth do you insist on making it sound like someone has claimed that? Nobody has.

If you were actually to read the earlier posts carefully enough, you would see that the first time the notion was written, that others had likely considered all this before, it was written in its own paragraph. It's a basic supposition implied merely by not being smarter than most everyone else. There was simply no written indication that the mentioned projects (multi-kernel, grid, or what have you...) were being actively considered, let alone developed. You made that up out of whole cloth.

Sure, you want high level parallelism, even at the cost of other long term well scaling parallelism (you wrote just that). It doesn't follow that Maplesoft agrees with you.

I've lost count of the logical fallacies you've incurred here.