I try to define an ellipse using the geometry package

with(geometry):

ellipse(e1,['foci'=[[0,1],[4,1]], 'MajorAxis' = 8],[x,y]);

I get the message:  Error, (in geometry:-ellipse) wrong type of arguments

but the documentation tells me that I can define an ellipse this way...

Hey MaplePrimes

I have been having a problem with almost all of my documents in maple. I have had a lot of notes and everything for my school on different documents, but I can't open them. When I want to open them, they show a little with "How do you want to open this file?" with the options "Maple Text, Plain Text, Maple Inputs" and I have tried them all, but my document won't show. It's really unfortunate because all of my school stuff is on these documents.

I am not sure why p is assigned to 1 when I do a logic problem.

The letter p should stay as p and not be assigned to one. I suspect it has something to do with a statement that is always true. This is annoying because sometimes I have expressions with p in a formula later on, and I didn't realize p has been assigned to 1. And I can't use p in a logical formula either since it's already been assigned to 1.

Hi folks,

I've come across this project which involves large algebraic expressions and I need to be able to simplify it using Maples in-built features, but with no succes.

The problem involves trig-functions. For instance I have several expressions involving:

       cos(v)*sin(w)-cos(w)*sin(v)       which I know equals     -sin(v-w)

but even if I use simplify, trig, size and so on it won't apply the above identity. Btw there are several other identities that aren't applied either.

Is there any way to "force" the above identity into consideration??

how to use Riemann matrix to output Riemann surface?

and plot this surface?

with(algcurves):
f:=y^3+2*x^7-x^3*y;
pm:=periodmatrix(f,x,y);
evalf(pm, 5);
rm:=evalf(periodmatrix(f,x,y,Riemann),10);
M := rm;
A := proc (x, y) options operator, arrow; RiemannTheta([x, y], M, [], 0.1e-1, output = list)[2] end proc;
plot3d(Re(A(x+I*y, 0)), x = 0 .. 1, y = 0 .. 4, grid = [40, 40]);

is this graph Riemann Surface?

if so, how to convert A into polynomials?

Please help me solve this question using maple (need the steps in solving).

When I copy mathml into Maple it always pasted the subscipts as indexed.  How could I quickly convert the indexed subscripts into literal subscripts without having to right click and convert each variable?

What is the best way to export/update multiple values from a single procedure? As far as I understand, a procedure does not let you update global values (the inputs), and it returns the value for the last step performed. Let's say for example, I had a procedure like this:

proc(a,b,c)

local x,y;

*series of steps that use a,b, and c to calculate x and y*

end proc

How do I get the results for x and y out of the procedure? 

Thanks

So I have an integral that computes perfectly in wolfram alpha but not in maple...

I will post it here

int(1/((4.532055545*10^9/f^4.14-2.311250000*10^5/f^2+(111*(1-0.2163331531e-4*f^2+2.340001656*10^(-10)*f^4))/(1+0.1081665766e-4*f^2)))*(6*10^(-21)*abs(1/f^(4/3)))^2, [f = 50 .. 1500])

the answer should be 3.05364*10^-46

If you try that exact line of code in maple, it will not compute (is stuck on evaluating)


Best Regards to all,
Zeus

I'm displaying a series of point plots as an animation, and would like to update a displayed parameter as well.  I have a nested list L[t] where there's a set of points for each t, and for each t there's also a numerical value M that I'd like to display.  (In my real problem, L[t] is the number of particles in each of several states, and M is the rms deviation from am algebraic probability distribution.)  

The closest I've gotten (for a simple L and M) is the following, but it displays all of the M values in the legend at once:

with(plots); with(Statistics);

L := [[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12]];

M := [1, 2];

display([seq(PointPlot(L[t], legend = M[t]), t = 1 .. 2)], insequence = true)

I don't need this to be in the legend.  Is there a way to display only the current value of M for each t?  Thanks very much.

How to prove or disprove the flatness of the surface x = (u-v)^2, y =  u^2-3*v^2, z = (1/2)*v*(u-2*v), where u and v are real-valued parameters? Here is my try:

I think Gaussian curvature should be used to this end. Dr. Robert J. Lopez is my hope.

Download flat.mw

I've been trying to make a smooth plot of some ODEs. It should show C rapidly increasing at the innitiation, until they get into a quassi steady state,  and then all three variables increase much slower. This should look like a roughly straight line that elbows sharply into a smooth curve.

Any attempt to DEplot3d it i've made either just shows the time before the quassi steady state is reached, so shows the straight line; or smooths that time together with the next period, making the straight line look like a part of the smooth curve.

Model := [diff(B[1](t), t) = k[a1]*C(t)*(R-B[1](t)-B[2](t))-k[d1]*B[1](t), diff(B[2](t), t) = k[a2]*C(t)*(R-B[1](t)-B[2](t))-k[d2]*B[2](t), diff(C(t), t) = (-(k[a1]+k[a2])*C(t)*(R-B[1](t)-B[2](t))+k[d1]*B[1]+k[d2]*B[2](t)+k[m]*((I)(t)-C(t)))/h];
DissMod := subs((I)(t) = 0, Model);
AssMod := subs((I)(t) = C[T], Model);


Pars := [k[a1] = 6*10^(-4), k[d1] = 7*10^(-3), k[a2] = 5*10^(-4), k[d2] = 10^(-2), R = .5, k[m] = 10^(-4), C[T] = 100, h = 10^(-6)]

StateSol := DEplot3d(subs(Pars, AssMod), [B[1](t), B[2](t), C(t)], t = 0 .. 1000, number = 3, B[1] = 0 .. .5, B[2] = 0 .. .5, [[B[1](0) = 0, B[2](0) = 0, C(0) = 0]], scene = [B[1](t), B[2](t), C(t)], maxstep = .1, maxfun = 0, method = l)

Is there a way to display the list of coordinates for implicitplot and plot, rather than the displaying image itself?

In Maple Classic this happens automatically when the assignment operator is used  ( := ) together with a semi-colon, eg.   A:=implicitplot(F, x=-1..1, y=-1..1);

But is there a way to do this in the non-classic version?  Thanks very much.

- Graham

Bruce Jenkins is President of Ora Research, an engineering research and advisory service. Maplesoft commissioned him to examine how systems-driven engineering practices are being integrated into the early stages of product development, the results of which are available in a free whitepaper entitled System-Level Physical Modeling and Simulation. In this series of blog posts, Mr. Jenkins discusses the results of his research.

This is the third entry in the series.

My last post, System-level physical modeling and simulation: Adoption drivers vs. adoption constraints, described my firm’s research project to investigate the contemporary state of adoption and application of systems modeling software technologies, and their attendant methods and work processes, in the engineering design of off-highway equipment and mining machinery.

In this project, I interviewed some half-dozen expert practitioners at leading manufacturers, including both engineering management and senior discipline leads, to identify key technological factors as well as business and competitive issues driving adoption and use of systems modeling at current levels.

After identifying present-day adoption drivers as well as current constraints on adoption, finally I sought to learn practitioners’ visions, strategies and best practices for accelerating and institutionalizing the implementation and usage of systems modeling tools and practices in their organizations.

I was strongly encouraged to find a wealth of avenues and opportunities for exploiting enterprise business drivers, current industry disruptions, and related internal realignments and change-management initiatives to help drive introduction—or proliferation—of these technologies and their associated new ways of working into engineering organizations:

• Systems modeling essential to compete by creating differentiated products
• Mechatronics revolution in off-highway equipment
• Industry downturns and disruptions create opportunities for disruptive innovation
• Opportunities to leverage change in underlying industry competitive dynamics
• Mining industry down-cycle creates opportunity to innovate, find new ways of working
• Some manufacturers are using current down-cycle in mining industry to change their product innovation strategy
• Strategies of manufacturers pursuing disruptive innovation
• Best odds are in companies with deep culture of continually inculcating new skills into their people, and rethinking methods and work processes
• Some managements willing to take radical corporate measures to replace old-thinking engineering staff with “systems thinkers”
• Downsizing in off-highway equipment manufacturers may push them to seek more systems-level value-add from their component suppliers
• New technology opportunities inside manufacturers ready to move more deeply into systems modeling
• Opportunities in new/emerging industries/companies without legacy investments in systems modeling tools and libraries
• Best practice for introducing systems modeling: start with work process, then bring in software
• Capitalizing on engineering’s leeway and autonomy in specifying systems modeling software compared with enterprise-standard CAD/PLM tools
• Systems modeling technology advances anticipated by practitioner advocates
• Improving software integration, interoperability, data interchange
• Improving co-simulation across domain tools
• Better, more complete FMI (Functional Mock-up Interface) implementation/compliance
• Higher-fidelity versions of FMI or similar

The white paper detailing the findings of this research is intended to offer guidance and advice for implementing change, as well as documentation to help convince colleagues, management and partners that new ways of working exist, and that the software technologies to support and enable them are available, accessible, and delivering payback and business advantage to forward-thinking engineering organizations today.

My hope is that this research finds utility as a practical, actionable aid for engineers and engineering management in helping their organizations to adopt and implement—or to strengthen and deepen—a simulation-led, systems-driven approach to product development.

You can download the full white paper reporting our findings here.

Bruce Jenkins, Ora Research
oraresearch.com