hy 
need help 
i made this code but i can not get the answer ,help me to find out where i did wrong.

thanx in advance




restart;
f:=x->(x^3+3*x^2-1);
n:=30;
tol:=1e-9;
a[0]:=0;
b[0]:=10;
Digits :=15;

printf("No root F(x) abs(x[i+1]-x[i])\n");

for i from 1 to n do
t[i-1] :=evalf( (b[i-1]-a[i-1])/(f(b[i-1])-f(a[i-1])));
c[i-1] := evalf((a[i-1]*f(b[i-1])-b[i-1]*f(a[i-1]))/(f(b[i-1])-f(a[i-1])));
x[i] :=evalf( x[i-1]-t[i-1]*f(x[i-1])^2/(f(x[i-1])-f(c[i-1])));

printf("%d %10.15f %10.15f %10.15e \n",i,x[i],f(x[i]),abs(x[i]-x[i-1]));
if f(a[i-1])*f(c[i-1])<0 then
a[i]:=a[i-1];
b[i]:=c[i-1];
else
a[i]:=c[i-1];
b[i]:=b[i-1];
if abs(f(x[i]))<tol then
print("approximate solution"= x[i]);
print("No of iterations"= i);
break;
end if;
end if;
end do:

Hey 

I just went from maple 18 to maple 2016. I use maple as a writing program aswell for notes and school.

I realized that maple 2016 does output lines when writing math in a textbox. This is kind of annoying since notes in chemistry is not allways a true mathematical expression. Therefore maple complains. Is there anyway to change this? 

Andreas

Hi all,

I was wondering how to go about validating some airfoil designs for my Formula SAE team's CFD results.  I know this is more common with simplier calculations but I'm hoping using Maple and maybe the new algebraic manipulation of non-comunitive differential operators, I could achive what I am after.   The two calculations of interest are the drag force and downforce.  Can someone shed some light? Thanks

Lets say we have to vectors u := Vector(3,[0,a_2,a_3]) and v :=Vector(3,[a_1,a_2,a_3]), in which a_1, a_2 and a_3 are arbitrary constants. It is clear that if we set a_1=0 we could see that u is contained in the vector space of v. Is there a function in Maple like isSubspace(u,v) which returns a boolean true or false?

An alternative interpretation could be that the image of u is a subset of the image of v.

Thank you alot for reading my question. 

When I try to use CodeTools:-Profiling:-Profile() (with no arguments), I get "kernel connection lost" after about a minute. Has anyone used this sucessfully, with no arguments? If so, would you please post a worksheet? I'm using Windows 8, if that makes a difference.

I think that I'll need to revert to the older kernelopts(profile= true).

In Maple V, Release 4 (1996):

gives:
                                 0, 0
                                 0, 1

In newer Maple:

?

Hello! 

I'm trying to plt something, I can't see why Maple isn't multiplying these two rows as it should. 

Can anyone see the problem?

This preamble is loaded:

restart;

with(Units[Standard]);
with(ArrayTools);

with(LinearAlgebra);

with(Statistics);
with(plots);
with(CurveFitting);

Thank you!

Download maple_what.mw

I did not understand fully some of the notation used in 2D when I had the tools->options->Display->Output display->2D. So I thought if I change it to Maple notation. I might see what the symbol actually mean.  But when I did so, the result was even more confusing. Full of typesetting:-mrow commands and hard to read.

Here is the output in 2D

restart;
int(1/( (x-a)*(x-b)),x=-infinity..infinity  );

And here is the output when I switched to Maple output:

I was expecting to see "normal" looking Maple commands, which I can understand. Even the Latex is easier to read than the above mumple jumple code:

Does this mean one should forget about using Maple notation for output from now on? Why is it the output so complicated?

I have a dataset:

NMP:=<0.530,0.555,0.572,0.592>:
ETOH:=<0.136,0.153,0.163,0.170>:

For these four data points [NMP,ETOH] I want to find the least square function in form of:

ln(ETOH/(1-ETOH-NMP))=a*ln(NMP/(1-ETOH-NMP))+b

also I need to find appropriate a,b constant values.

This function is implicite so I cannot use with(Statistics):NonlinearFit.

Can you help me how to determine a,b constants?

Hi 

friend i want fit a curve regarding some data and fnction and how we can find the values of a,b,c and d for the following 

f=1-(8*a*b+6*c*d/(b*k*x))/(2*a*b+c*b*(1/(b*k*x)))

X := Vector([200, 210, 220, 230, 240, 250, 260, 270, 280, 290])

Y := Vector([.4172, .3030, .4668, .3317, .1276, .1303, .1733, .1451, .3466, .4125])

Code & result:

> map((a::uneval,b)->'args',[a,b,c,d],1..4,x);       
['a, 1 .. 4, x', 'b, 1 .. 4, x', 'c, 1 .. 4, x', 'd, 1 .. 4, x']

> map((a,b::uneval)->'args',[a,b,c,d],1..4,x);           
[a, 1 .. 4, x, b, 1 .. 4, x, c, 1 .. 4, x, d, 1 .. 4, x]

Why is the output not:
['a', 1 .. 4, x, 'b', 1 .. 4, x, 'c', 1 .. 4, x, 'd', 1 .. 4, x]
and
[a, '1 .. 4', x, b, '1 .. 4', x, c, '1 .. 4', x, d, '1 .. 4', x]
?

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 second entry in the series.

My last post, Strategies for accelerating the move to simulation-led, systems-driven engineering, 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.

Adoption drivers

In this project, I conducted in-depth, structured but open-ended interviews with some half-dozen expert practitioners at leading manufacturers, including both engineering management and senior discipline leads. These interviews identified the following key technological factors as well as business and competitive issues driving adoption and use of systems modeling tools and methods at current levels:

• Fuel economy and emissions mandates, powertrain electrification and autonomous operation requirements
• Software’s ability to drive down product cost of ownership and delivery times
• Traditional development processes often fail to surface system-level issues until fabrication or assembly, or even until operational deployment
• Detailed analysis tools such as FEA and CFD focus on behaviors at the component level, and are not optimal for studies of the complete system
• Engineering departments/groups enjoy greater freedom in systems modeling software selection and purchase decisions than in enterprise-controlled CAD/PDM/PLM decisions
• Good C/VP-level visibility of systems modeling tools, especially in off-highway equipment

Adoption constraints

At the same time, there was widespread agreement among all the experts interviewed that these tools and methods are not being brought to bear with anywhere near the breadth or depth that practitioner advocates would like, and that they believe would be greatly beneficial to their organizations and industries.

In probing why this is, the interviews revealed an array of factors constraining broader adoption at present. These range from legacy engineering culture issues, through human resource limitations and constraints imposed by business models and corporate cultures, to entrenched shortcomings in how long-established systems modeling software toolsets have been deployed and applied to the product development process:

• Legacy engineering culture constraints
• Conservatism of mining machinery product development culture
• Engineering practices in long-standardized industries grounded in handbook formulas and rules of thumb
• Perceived lack of time in schedule to do systems modeling
• Human resource constraints
• Low availability of engineers with systems modeling skills
• Shortage of engineers trained in systems thinking
• Legacy engineering processes compound shortage of systems-thinking engineers
• Industry downturns put constraints on professional staff development
• Business-model and corporate-culture constraints
• Culture of seeking to mitigate cost and risk by staying with legacy designs instead of advancing and innovating the product
• Corporate awareness of need to innovate in mining machinery gets stifled at engineering level
• Low C/VP-level visibility of systems modeling tools in mining machinery
• Engineering organization constraints on innovating/modernizing their systems modeling technology infrastructure
• Power users wedded to legacy systems modeling tools
• Weak integration at many/most points of the engineering digital toolset chain
• Implementing systems modeling software as a sales configuration/costing aid seen as taking too much time

My next post will detail practitioners’ visions, strategies and best practices for accelerating and institutionalizing the implementation and usage of systems modeling tools and practices in their organizations.

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

Bruce Jenkins, Ora Research
oraresearch.com

In the process of simplification I have the following multi-variable polynomial:

y:=-8*C*d1^2*(-2+d1)*(-1+d1)^3*r*L*R^3+(d1^4*(-2+d1)^2*L^2-4*C*(-2+d1)*(4*d1^3-13*d1^2+16*d1-8)*(-1+d1)^2*r^2*L+4*C^2*(-2+d1)^2*(-1+d1)^4*r^4)*R^2+(2*d1^4*(-2+d1)^2*r*L^2-2*C*(-2+d1)*(5*d1^3-24*d1^2+32*d1-16)*(-1+d1)^2*r^3*L+4*C^2*(-2+d1)^2*(-1+d1)^4*r^5)*R+d1^4*(-2+d1)^2*r^2*L^2-2*C*(-2+d1)*(d1^3-6*d1^2+8*d1-4)*(-1+d1)^2*r^4*L+C^2*(-2+d1)^2*(-1+d1)^4*r^6

This polynomial contains several (-2+d1), (-1+d1) terms with varying powers in each term. My question here is how to take out common terms and then form compact multi-variable polynomial (without having physical inspection).

Thank you for your help.

MVC

Hello people in Mapleprimes,

I have an expression which I want to modify with another equation.

They are simple, and looks easy to simplify.

nb:=(k-sigma+1)*lambda*L*(gamma*upsilon-delta__1122^k*tau)*upsilon*tau*v/(f__F*sigma*(-tau^2+upsilon^2)*k);

hh := (L*lambda*(k-sigma+1)*upsilon*tau*v)/(f__F*sigma*(-tau^2+upsilon^2)*k)=rho;

I want to express nb with hh as

(gamma*upsilon-delta__1122^k*tau)*rho;

With the next code, that modification can be done.

isolate(hh,f__F);subs(%,nb);simplify(%);

But, this isolates hh for f__F, which does not look intuitive.

On the other hand, the outcome of the substitution looks so simple, which you find with executing  the codes of

nb, and hh.

But, algsubs, and subs, and simplify/siderel won't work properly.

What I want to ask is this. Isn't there any nice way to substitute hh into nb other than isolating f__F, so that the result is expressed with rho?

I will be very glad if you will give me answers.

Best wishes.

taro

I am solving "Fx=0" for geting "roots:x" using "solve(Fx,x)". Solution is in the form of "a+sqrt(b)", "a-sqrt(b)". One solution "f1" is given below.

f1:=1/2*(-8*R*d1^2*r^2*C+10*d1*r^2*C*R+5*d1*r^3*C+2*r*L*d1^2-2*C*r^3+2*R*L*d1^2-R*L*d1^3-r*L*d1^3-4*C*r^2*R+2*R*d1^3*r^2*C-4*r^3*d1^2*C+r^3*d1^3*C+sqrt(26*r^6*d1^4*C^2+41*r^6*d1^2*C^2-44*r^6*d1^3*C^2-20*C^2*r^6*d1+16*C^2*r^5*R-16*C*r^4*L-176*r^5*d1^3*C^2*R+164*r^5*d1^2*C^2*R-74*r^4*d1^4*C*L+136*r^4*d1^3*C*L-136*r^4*d1^2*C*L-80*C^2*r^5*d1*R+72*C*r^4*L*d1-64*C*r^3*R*L+104*R^2*d1^4*r^4*C^2-176*R^2*d1^3*r^4*C^2+164*R^2*d1^2*r^4*C^2-8*r^6*d1^5*C^2+r^2*L^2*d1^6-4*R^2*L^2*d1^5+104*r^5*d1^4*C^2*R+40*r*L*R^3*d1^5*C-72*r*L*R^3*d1^4*C+56*r*L*R^3*d1^3*C-16*r*L*R^3*d1^2*C+R^2*L^2*d1^6+20*r^4*L*C*d1^5-32*r^4*d1^5*C^2*R^2+2*R*L^2*d1^6*r-2*r^4*L*d1^6*C+4*R^2*d1^6*r^4*C^2+4*R*d1^6*r^5*C^2-306*r^3*d1^4*C*R*L+548*r^3*d1^3*C*L*R-544*r^3*d1^2*C*R*L+288*C*r^3*L*d1*R+16*C^2*r^4*R^2+4*R^2*L^2*d1^4-16*R^2*L*d1^6*r^2*C-10*R*L*d1^6*r^3*C+r^6*d1^6*C^2-32*r^5*d1^5*C^2*R-4*r^2*d1^5*L^2-352*R^2*d1^4*r^2*C*L+580*R^2*d1^3*r^2*C*L-552*R^2*d1^2*r^2*C*L-80*d1*r^4*C^2*R^2-8*R^3*d1^6*L*C*r+88*r^3*L*C*d1^5*R+116*r^2*L*R^2*d1^5*C+4*C^2*r^6-8*r*R*L^2*d1^5+288*d1*r^2*C*R^2*L-64*C*r^2*R^2*L+8*r*L^2*d1^4*R+4*r^2*L^2*d1^4)^(1/2))/(-3*r^2*d1*L*C-6*R*d1*L*C*r+2*L*C*r^2+r^2*d1^2*L*C+4*L*C*r*R+2*R*d1^2*L*C*r);

I used the following Maple syntax

patmatch(f1,XT::algebraic+sqrt(YT::algebraic),'q1');

the answer is "false"

Is there any modification in the syntax "patmatch" is required.

Here, my question is how to separate "a" and "b" in "a+sqrt(b)" (a, b are big expressions involving many variables).

Thanking you advance for your help.