Product Suggestions

Post your suggestions on new features and products.

I teach math at the high school level.

I am worried that Maple 2025 appears to be slower than Maple 2024 - in particular for students with older, less strong laptops.

Maple 2025 takes 50% longer to start than Maple 2024 (or Maple 2025 Screen Reader which I expect to be using).

So, on more sluggist student laptops I fear the slowness overall will be an issue - in particular as Maple regularly has to be shutdown and restarted for some of those students.

Further, I really miss the "recompute section !" and the "magniffy" icons on the quest access bar. Having "recompute entire worksheet !!!" seems unwise though. I wish you could costumize the quest access bar.

Overall, from a teaching point of view, I am not at all impressed, sadly.

Just an observation.

I was wondering if less obvious errors than in the below can be avoided with future versions of the AI assistant. Maybe a warning that a formula uses special Maple symbols is possible.

Formulas without dimensions are more susceptible to undetected errors.

Deflection of a circular cantilever

(a first attemp with the AI formula assistant)

_local(I)

I

(1)

AI prompt: Deflection of a circular cantilever with a  force applied at the end

Correct formular inserted ->
delta = F*L^3/(3*E*I)

delta = (1/3)*F*L^3/(E*I)

(2)

AI prompt:  Moment of inertia of a circular cross-section

Correct formular inserted ->

I = (1/4)*Pi*R^4

I = (1/4)*Pi*R^4

(3)

subs(I = (1/4)*Pi*R^4, delta = (1/3)*F*L^3/(E*I))

delta = (4/3)*F*L^3/(E*Pi*R^4)

(4)

params := R = 25*Unit('mm'), F = 200*Unit('N'), L = 1.*Unit('m'), E = 210000*Unit('N'/'mm'^2)

R = 25*Units:-Unit(mm), F = 200*Units:-Unit(N), L = 1.*Units:-Unit(m), E = 210000*Units:-Unit(N/mm^2)

(5)

subs(R = 25*Units:-Unit(mm), F = 200*Units:-Unit(N), L = 1.*Units:-Unit(m), E = 210000*Units:-Unit(N/mm^2), delta = (4/3)*F*L^3/(E*Pi*R^4))

delta = 0.1034759757e-8*Units:-Unit(N)*Units:-Unit(m)^3/(Units:-Unit(N/mm^2)*Units:-Unit(mm)^4)

(6)

simplify(%)

delta = 0.1034759757e-2*Units:-Unit(m)

(7)

NULL

The dimension of m^9 for a deflection clearly indicates an error.

A better prompt to avoid this error (caused by automatic simplification) could not be found

Download AI_formula_assistant.mw

P.S.:

This is a real example that happend to me where I did not notice the minus sign in Maples output in equation (1). The error  can easily be fixed by adding "local I" as the first statement of the document and the deflection becomes 1 mm.

I don't have the latest Maple, and I'm sure this isn't in the latest version. 

One thing that has been an annoyance for all time, and it gets me time and time again, is not having a global degrees or radians setting. 

Of course it needs to be a setting option, otherwise it would break many older worksheets. 

fyi, there is new video showing Maple's 2025 new interface

It seems oriented to document mode which I do not use. May be they also improved worksheet mode.

I am still getting my Maple desktop getting shuffled few times each day where I have to close Maple and reopen it to clear it. I hope they fixed this in the new interface.,

To Maplesoft,

Please consider changing the name from Maple to something else.

It is almost impossible to search for anything related to maple, since google keeps giving results about trees called Maple in Canada and about some maple syrup products which I have no interest in at all.

One has to go through pages and pages of links looking for a real Maple software hit.

I know the name Maple has been around for long time, but a new unique name will make searching easier and people will get used to the new name very quickly (may be in 1-2 years).

Some examples:

 

I know when Maple was created almost 40 years ago, the inernet itself was not even here (I forgot when VP. Gore created the internet but I think that was in early 90's), and search was not thought about then.

But these days, the ability to search for something and to easily find it is very important for companies and having a unique name for Maple will make it also much more popular and easier to find things about it instead of finding  information about Maple syrup and Maple trees all the time.

This is posted  under product suggestions.

Greetings, dear Maple developers!

I, Yegor Volovodenko, together with my supervisor, Igor Zinoviev, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of General Mathematics at ZNU, am conducting research on ‘Solving equations and inequalities of elementary mathematics by means of computer mathematics: opportunities, problems and ways to solve them’. I express my sincere gratitude for your work on the development and popularisation of mathematics, for the constant improvement and enhancement of CAS in particular.

Unfortunately, during the study, we found some, in our opinion, shortcomings in the work of Maxima algorithms for solving elementary equations and inequalities

  1. Solving equations with parameters;



    In these two cases, the solution obtained is formal, without analysing the cases when the coefficient of a variable is zero. Thus, not all solutions of equations with a parameter are obtained. I believe that if the user is not familiar with the methodology for solving equations with parameters, he or she may lose some solutions that may be important for further work. So the solution can be considered incomplete.

 

  1. Solving equations with two variables.
     

In the equation with two variables, the answer was given in complex numbers, which is incomprehensible to a person who is not familiar with complex numbers. There are also comments on the course of the solution, in this equation it was necessary to select the square of the difference, and then solve the equation x^2+(y-2)^2=0, getting x=0, y=2.

I hope that the results I have obtained (the identified shortcomings) will help to correct the work of the algorithms and improve the work of the Maple system.

Sincerely, Yegor Volovodenko, Igor Zinoviev.

Try it yourself, you will understand what I mean. (MF2024.2.1)

 

Referring to the screenshots, "J" can be converted to "N m" in MF2024.1, but not in M2024.2.
Is this some sort of bug in M2024.2?

 

 

With the new release of Maple Flow 2024.2 the units "Area" and "Speed" don't work.

I run a MaxBook Pro with macOS Sequoia 15.2 and uninstalled MF2024.2.

 

I am a new user of Maple Flow 2024.2.

Since I installed this version I got trouble with the following commands:

solve(x^3-2x^2+3x-2)=1.00.  Just 1 root is returned

fsolve((x-2)(x+3)(x-1))=-3.  Just 1 root is returned

ifactors(3024)=.   Maple Flow latch in and crashes without errot massage

seq(i^2,i=1..5)=. Sequence not executed

subs(...)= Substitute not executed

Optimization:-Minimize(...)=.  Latch in, error


With the help of the Maplesoft-Team I uninstalled and installed several times MF on a MacBook Pro Sequoia 15.2 and on a MacBook Pro Ventura 13.7.2 with and without Firewall and McAfee. 
No success, the problems still remain.

I'll no longer use Maple Flow in this version.
I expect a new update asap!

I think a new integer subtype is needed: integer greater than one, gtoint.

isgto := proc(x::anything)
  local X;
  X:=x;
  return type(X,integer) and (X>1);
end:

AddType(gtoint,z->not isgto(z));

Major deficiency in Physics[Vectors]; Distinct sets of basis vectors are not recognized!

You can't define vectors in alternative bases like: {\hat{i}',\hat{j}',\hat{k}'} or {\hat{i}_{1},\hat{j}_{2},\hat{k}_{3}}.

This deficiency has been around for a while. I have found other posts regarding this problem.

The deficiency greatly reduces the allowable calculations with Physics[Vector].

Are there any plans to fix this?

Here is my example which shows this deficiency in more detail.

physics_vectors_and_multiple_unit_vectors.mw
 

restart

NULL

NULL

with(Physics[Vectors])

[`&x`, `+`, `.`, Assume, ChangeBasis, ChangeCoordinates, CompactDisplay, Component, Curl, DirectionalDiff, Divergence, Gradient, Identify, Laplacian, Nabla, Norm, ParametrizeCurve, ParametrizeSurface, ParametrizeVolume, Setup, Simplify, `^`, diff, int]

(1)

NULL

Crucial Deficiency in Physics[Vectors]

 

NULL

I can only guess the purpose of the Physics[Vectors] package from reviewing it's corresponding help documentation. My interpretation of the documentation leads me to believe that the package is best used for generating vector equation formulas in different coordinate bases of a SINGLE coordinate system.

 

This means one can easily generate position vector expressions such as:

 

r_ = _i*x+_j*y+_k*z

r_ = _i*x+_j*y+_k*z

(1.1)

Cylindrical Position Vector

 

The position vector in a cylindrical basis is given by:

 

r_ = ChangeBasis(rhs(r_ = _i*x+_j*y+_k*z), 2)

r_ = (x*cos(phi)+y*sin(phi))*_rho+(cos(phi)*y-sin(phi)*x)*_phi+z*_k

(1.1.1)

r_ = ChangeBasis(rhs(r_ = _i*x+_j*y+_k*z), 2, alsocomponents)

r_ = _k*z+_rho*rho

(1.1.2)

NULL

NULLNULLNULL

Spherical Position Vector

 

NULL

r_ = ChangeBasis(rhs(r_ = _i*x+_j*y+_k*z), 3)

r_ = (y*sin(phi)*sin(theta)+x*sin(theta)*cos(phi)+z*cos(theta))*_r+(y*sin(phi)*cos(theta)+x*cos(phi)*cos(theta)-z*sin(theta))*_theta+(cos(phi)*y-sin(phi)*x)*_phi

(1.2.1)

r_ = ChangeBasis(rhs(r_ = _i*x+_j*y+_k*z), 3, alsocomponents)

r_ = r*_r

(1.2.2)

NULL

NULL

As is known from the vector analysis of curvilinear coordinate systems the basis vectors can depend on the coordinates in question.

 

In cylindrical, the basis vectors are

 

_rho = ChangeBasis(_rho, 1)

_rho = _i*cos(phi)+sin(phi)*_j

(1.2)

_phi = ChangeBasis(_phi, 1)

_phi = -sin(phi)*_i+cos(phi)*_j

(1.3)

and in spherical, the basis vectors are

 

_r = ChangeBasis(_r, 1)

_r = sin(theta)*cos(phi)*_i+sin(theta)*sin(phi)*_j+cos(theta)*_k

(1.4)

_theta = ChangeBasis(_theta, 1)

_theta = cos(theta)*cos(phi)*_i+cos(theta)*sin(phi)*_j-sin(theta)*_k

(1.5)

_phi = ChangeBasis(_phi, 1)

_phi = -sin(phi)*_i+cos(phi)*_j

(1.6)

NULL

NULL

NULL

Example of this Deficiency using Biot-Savart Law

 

NULL

Biot-Savart law can be used to calculate a magnetic field due to a current carrying wire. The deficiency in question can be observed by explicity constructing the integrand in the Biot-Savart integral defined below.

NULL

NULL

NULL

In electrodynamics, quantum mechanics and applied mathematics, it is common practice to define a position of observation by a vector `#mover(mi("r"),mo("→"))` and a position of the source responsible for generating the field by a vector diff(`#mover(mi("r"),mo("→"))`(x), x).

 

It is just as common to define the difference in these vectors as

 

l_ = r_-(diff(r(x), x))*_

l_ = r_-`r'_`

(1.3.1)

and thus

 

dl_ = dr_-(diff(dr(x), x))*_

dl_ = dr_-`dr'_`

(1.3.2)

as found in the integrand of the Biot-Savart integral.

NULL

It suffices to consider `#mover(mi("l"),mo("→"))` = `#mover(mi("r"),mo("→"))`-`#mover(mi("r'"),mo("→"))` in a cylindrical basis for this argument.

 

The observation position is:

 

`#mover(mi("r"),mo("→"))` = rho*`#mover(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("∧"))`+z*`#mover(mi("k"),mo("∧"))`

NULL

The source position is:

 

diff(`#mover(mi("r"),mo("→"))`(x), x) = (diff(z(x), x))*(diff(`#mover(mi("k"),mo("∧"))`(x), x))+(diff(rho(x), x))*(diff(`#mover(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("∧"))`(x), x))

NULL

`#mover(mi("l"),mo("→"))` = `#mover(mi("r"),mo("→"))`-(diff(`#mover(mi("r"),mo("→"))`(x), x)) and `#mover(mi("r"),mo("→"))`-(diff(`#mover(mi("r"),mo("→"))`(x), x)) = z(x)*`#mover(mi("k"),mo("∧"))`-(diff(z(x), x))*(diff(`#mover(mi("k"),mo("∧"))`(x), x))+rho*`#mover(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("∧"))`-(diff(rho(x), x))*(diff(`#mover(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("∧"))`(x), x))

NULL

The deficiency in question arises because MAPLE cannot define multiple unit vectors in distinct bases such as {`#mover(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("∧"))`, diff(`#mover(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("∧"))`(x), x)} or {`#mscripts(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mn("1"),none(),none(),mo("∧"),none(),none())`, `#mscripts(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mn("2"),none(),none(),mo("∧"),none(),none())`}.  These pairs of unit vectors arise naturally, as shown above in Biot-Savart law.

NULL

If we look at `#mover(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("ˆ"))` and  diff(`#mover(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("ˆ"))`(x), x) generally, they look like:

NULL

`#mover(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("∧"))` = `#mover(mi("i"),mo("∧"))`*cos(phi)+sin(phi)*`#mover(mi("j"),mo("∧"))`

NULL

diff(`#mover(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("∧"))`(x), x) = (diff(`#mover(mi("i"),mo("∧"))`(x), x))*cos(diff(phi(x), x))+sin(diff(phi(x), x))*(diff(`#mover(mi("j"),mo("∧"))`(x), x))

NULL

If the bases vectors {`#mover(mi("i"),mo("∧"))`, `#mover(mi("j"),mo("∧"))`, `#mover(mi("k"),mo("∧"))`} and {diff(`#mover(mi("i"),mo("∧"))`(x), x), diff(`#mover(mi("j"),mo("∧"))`(x), x), diff(`#mover(mi("k"),mo("∧"))`(x), x)} are Cartesian and are not related related through rotations so that

NULL

"(i)*i' =(|i|)*|i'|*cos(0)=1"``NULL

NULL

"(j)*(j)' =(|j|)*|(j)'|*cos(0)=1"NULL

NULL

"(k)*(k)' =(|k|)*|(k)'|*cos(0)=1 "

NULL

and so,NULL

 

`#mover(mi("i"),mo("ˆ"))` = diff(`#mover(mi("i"),mo("ˆ"))`(x), x)

NULL

`#mover(mi("j"),mo("ˆ"))` = diff(`#mover(mi("j"),mo("ˆ"))`(x), x)

NULL

`#mover(mi("k"),mo("ˆ"))` = diff(`#mover(mi("k"),mo("ˆ"))`(x), x)

NULL

the radial unit vectors in cylindrical are then,

 

`#mover(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("∧"))` = `#mover(mi("i"),mo("∧"))`*cos(phi)+sin(phi)*`#mover(mi("j"),mo("∧"))`

NULL

diff(`#mover(mi("ρ",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("∧"))`(x), x) = `#mover(mi("i"),mo("∧"))`*cos(diff(phi(x), x))+sin(diff(phi(x), x))*`#mover(mi("j"),mo("∧"))`

NULL

In typical problems, the anglular location of the observation point, φ, is distinct from the angular location of the source, diff(phi(x), x) and so under this condition, `#mover(mi("&rho;",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("&and;"))` <> diff(`#mover(mi("&rho;",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("&and;"))`(x), x).

 

Consider the classic problem of the magnetic field due to a circular current carrying wire. Surely, the angular coordinate of one location of the current carrying wire  is different from the angular coordinate  of an observation point hovering above and off-axis on the other side of the current carrying wire. See figure below.

NULL

NULL

NULL

NULL

Therefore,

 

`#mover(mi("&rho;",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("&and;"))` <> diff(`#mover(mi("&rho;",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("&and;"))`(x), x)

NULL

NULL

What happens in MAPLE when you try to define a second distinct unit vector diff(`#mover(mi("&rho;",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("&and;"))`(x), x)?

NULL

One can easily find `#mover(mi("&rho;",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("&and;"))`.

NULL

_rho

_rho

(1.3.3)

NULL

NULLIf you try to define diff(`#mover(mi("&rho;",fontstyle = "normal"),mo("&and;"))`(x), x) ...

 

 

diff(_rho(x), x)

`_rho'`

(1.3.4)

So using a prime doesn't work.

NULL

You could try a numbered subscript...

`_&rho;__2`

_rho__2

(1.3.5)

but that doesn't work.

 

You could try an indexed unit vector...

NULL

_rho[2]

_rho[2]

(1.3.6)

which can be define but is not recognized by Physics[Vectors] since...

 

NULL

ChangeBasis(_rho[2], 1)

Error, (in Physics:-Vectors:-Identify) incorrect indexed use of a unit vector: _rho[2]

 

NULL

And so it's just not possible with the current implementation.

``

``

NULL

NULL


 

Download physics_vectors_and_multiple_unit_vectors.mw

 

 

This post is about the visualization of a gyroscopic phenomenon of a rotating body. MapleSim models and a description for those who do not have MapleSim are provided for their own analysis. Implementation with other tools like Maple might give further insight into the phenomenon.

With appropriate initial conditions, a ball thrown into a tube can pop out of the tube. This can be reproduced with a MapleSim model

Throwing_a_ball_into_a_tube_A.msim

To hit a perfect shot without trial and error, time reversal was applied for the model (reversed calculation results of a ball exiting the tube are used as initial conditions for the shot). This worked straight away and shows that this model is sufficiently conservative.

This phenomenon has recently attracted attention on YouTube. For example, Steve Mold demonstrates the effect and provides an intuitive explanation which he considers incomplete because the resulting vertical oscillation of the ball does not match theory and his experiments. He suspects that the assumption of a constant axis of rotation of the ball is responsible for this discrepancy.

However, he cannot demonstrate a change of the axis of rotation. In general, the visualization of the rotation axis of a ball is difficult to achieve in an experiment. On the contrary, visualization is much easier in a simulation experiment with this model:

Throwing_a_ball_into_a_tube_B.msim

The following can be observed for a trajectroy that does not exit the tube:

At the apex (the top) of the trajectory, the vector of rotation (red bold in the following images) points downwards and is essentially parallel to the axis of the cylinder. The graph to the left shows the vertical (in green) position and one horizontal position (in red). The model applies gravity in negative y direction.