Hi!

How to get the plot of the system of the equation below:

Tau >=0.Plot.mw

I did not succeed.

Thanks

plot3d(abs(Zeta(x + y*I)), x = -4 .. 5, y = -10 .. 40, view = [-4 .. 5, -10 .. 40, 0 .. 4])

Hi, is it possible to stretch y axis to get more satisfyng view of this graph? (without using scaling cosntrained)

Hello,

I'm using the command

Matlab(AA,resultname="A",optimize=tryhard)

to generate Matlab code for a quite big matrix. The first problem is, that I get a lot of the following warnings

Warning, cannot resolve types, reassigning t33's type

for a bunch of different t** variables. When I copy the generated code to Matlab I get the error: 'Dimensions of arrays being concatenated are not consistent.'

I found that some entries are obviously transposed like

t50 = [0 0 0 0 0 0 t34 0 0 0 0 -t33 t37 0 0 0 0 0 -t44 0 0 0 0 0 t49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];

should be a column vector. Here is a snippet of how the resulting matrix A is constructed (I can't show the full code because it consists of some 100 lines):

A = [t50 t97 t143 t190 t237 t261 ... ]

I tried to manually transpose the entries. The matrix can be generated but the dimension is wrong, hence, it must be a wrong matrix then. Does anyone know what could be the reason for this? I generate the matrix via the Hessian-command

x0 := x - Pi/4;
y0 := y - Pi/4;
z0 := z - Pi/4;
f := (x, y, z) -> 10*sin(x0)*sin(y0)*sin(z0) + 10*sin(x0)*cos(y0)*cos(z0) + 10*cos(x0)*sin(y0)*cos(z0) + 10*cos(x0)*cos(y0)*sin(z0) - 7/10*cos(4*x) - 7/10*cos(4*y) - 7/10*cos(4*z);
implicitplot3d(evalc(f(x, y, z) = 9), x = -4.5 .. 4.5, y = -4.5 .. 4.5, z = -4.5 .. 4.5, grid = [60, 60, 60], style = patchnogrid);

Hi, do you know how can I restrict this plot using another implicitplot3d let's say sphere given by x^2+y^2+z^2<=4.5?

The https://sites.google.com/view/aladjevbookssoft/home site contains free books in English and Russian along with software created under the guidance of the main author prof. V. Aladjev in such areas as general theory of statistics, theory of cellular automata, programming in Maple and Mathematica systems. Each book is archived, including its cover and book block in pdf format. The software with freeware license is designed for Maple and Mathematica.

C_MRB is defined below. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MRBConstant.html.

Starting by using Maple on the Inverse Symbolic Calculator, with over 21 years of research and ideas from users like you, I developed this shortlist of formulas for the MRB constant.

• C_MRB=  

That is proven below by an internet scholar going by the moniker "Dark Malthorp:"

•  denoting the kth derivative of the Dirichlet eta function of k and 0 respectively was first discovered in 2012 by Richard Crandall of Apple Computer.

The left half is proven below by Gottfried Helms and it is proven more rigorously considering the conditionally convergent sum, below that. Then the right half is a Taylor expansion of η(s) around s = 0.

At https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1673886/is-there-a-more-rigorous-way-to-show-these-two-sums-are-exactly-equal,

it has been noted that "even though one has cause to be a little bit wary around formal rearrangements of conditionally convergent sums (see the Riemann series theorem), it's not very difficult to validate the formal manipulation of Helms. The idea is to cordon off a big chunk of the infinite double summation (all the terms from the second column on) that we know is absolutely convergent, which we are then free to rearrange with impunity. (Most relevantly for our purposes here, see pages 80-85 of this document, culminating with the Fubini theorem which is essentially the manipulation Helms is using.)"

Look at the following Maple code and output, from Maple 2020. Can you explain the results? I know returning an uninitiated local variable is bad practice, but I cannot make sense of what happens when I do it anyway (just to understand the internals of the Maple language). Should I simply consider the results as undefined behavior?

> f:=proc()                                                                    
>     local x;                                                                 
>     return x;                                                                
> end proc:                                     

> a1 := f() + f();                                                             
                                   a1 := 2 x

> a2 := f() - f();                                                             
                                  a2 := x - x

> a1 + a2;                                                                       
                                  2 x + x - x

> a3 := f() + f() + f();                                                       
                                   a3 := 3 x

> a4 := f() + f() + f() - f();                                                 
                                 a4 := 3 x - x

f := z -> 1 + z/(1 + z^2/(1 + z^3/(1 + z^4/(1 + z^5/(1 + z^6/(1 + z^7))))))

Hi,do you know how to write a loop that would create such a continued fraction?

How to simplify the product of 4x4 matrices and how can we take out the expression that appears in each entry of the matrix?

MLM-1.mw

Hi,

I'm trying to use an older package but the results of the author's own example returns the error:

"Error, (in SumTools:-DefiniteSum:-ClosedForm) summand is singular in the interval of summation"

I don't have access to the source coude, but by looking at other similar issues it seems to be happening when "sum" function is used. Is there a way to force Maple use "add" instead?

Thanks!

What im trying to do is build a 14 faced polyhedron from 9 vertices however when i try to plot 1 of these faces as defined by these vectors using polygonplot3d,


 

the resulting graph plots the points, [17/2,-17/2,0],[0,0,11/2],[0,0,sqrt(166/4)] instead of how they are given by their vectors. It plots correctly if i use "polygonplot3d(Matrix([A1, A2, B1]))" but this does not scale well to my full polyhedron as Im not sure how to choose my faces in that regard. Is there any way I can force polygonplot3d to actually plot the vectors as points properly. Or is it simplist to convert all my vectors to lists first before plotting?

Thanks a lot, Seb
 

Hello there, 

Would you tell me how to treat differentiation as an operator?

Here is a simple example:

(The content of the worksheet is supposed to be here, but that did not work)

Download Q20210407.mw

The 'coeff' operation shows 'psi__d0' as the only coefficient of 'Delta__delta(t)', while what I wanted to see is the 'Desired' expression in the worksheet, '(psi__d0 + psi__q0 / omega__0 * D)' as the coefficients. Here, 'D' represents the differentiation. 

Thank you, 

In Kwon Park 

EssayTools command SpellCorrectWord("trnu") will return "run" and not return "turn".

Is there a way for Maple to only find anagrams with the same length as the given string?

Can Maple do this referencing an external dictionary located on the internet e.g. a complete Websters?

Hello all,

I am very new to Maple but it looks like a wonderful symbolic computing tool.  I am hoping to gain some familiarity with it and one of my first questions is this:  I have identified a nice formula refered to as a modified inverse gamma function.  This is a "peak function" with a couple nice features.  Firstly, it can describe both positively and negatively skewed distributions, and secondly its mode and amplitude are easily recognized as (X₀,Ym).  I have entered it into a Maple 2019 notebook as so:

Y = Ym*(c/((d + 1)*(X - X__0) + c))^(d + 1)*exp((X - X__0)*(d + 1)^2/((d + 1)*(X - X__0) + c))

What I would like to do is calculate the positions, X, of the two points where it is half-maximal.  That is, where Y=1/2Ym.  I would like to assume that all numbers are real, etc.  I should point out that in the real world, I will have optimized the values of Ym, X₀, c and d by first fitting to actual data, so this may helpfully constrain the problem.

Can someone explain how I might go about this?  If you assume I know nothing, I will not be offended.

Thank you!