When using solve or other commands to find solutions to a problem that has more than one solution, they are returned as a list. I have observed that ordering within the list is not consistent from one run to another, and I am starting to suspect, as I try to juggle a complex cubic depending on a parameter, that the labelling can change within a single run. This is inconvenient. Any advice? Am I missing something?

For some of the users with eye problems like me, the white canvas is burning eyes out of sockets as the monitor needs to be close up. Even turning down the intensity do not work especially since all other applications on Linux can be configured to have a dark-theme, but NOT Maple it seems.

What is the reason for this resistance from Maple Developers to just ram this white canvas down our throats verion after version.

Users have been asking since about Maple 11 to change  this.

I mean, Maple is not exactly cheap, which would have been an excuse, and is formidable intellectual software, so "ability" should not be a problem

However am I to believe that just changing the canvas color, turns out to be  a serious intellectual challenge for developers ?

Google yields such custom canvas request spanning more than a decade, but users arrive at crickets and a dead end.

Please be kind and give us a customizable canvas or any DARK theme of your choice for users with visual challenges and the lots of normal users who also want a custom canvas color or dark theme. It is overdue.

At the moment I use the cumbersome table-solution with a gray background, which helps some, but it is clunky and no alternative for long term use as the window and bars itself are still white and distracts and defeats the objective somewhat.

`c₁₁`, `c₁₂`, `c₁₃`, `e₃₁`, `c₆₆`, `c₄₄`, `e₁₅`, rho, `ϵ₁₁`, `ϵ₃₃` = constants;
`U₁` := unapply(`U₁`(t, x, y, z), x, y, z, t);
`U₂` := unapply(`U₂`(t, x, y, z), x, y, x, t);
`U₃` := unapply(`U₃`(t, x, y, z), x, y, z, t);
phi := unapply(phi(t, x, y, z), x, y, z, t);

PDE1 := `c₁₁`*Diff(`U₁`, y, y) + `c₁₂`*Diff(`U₂`, x, y) + `c₁₃`*Diff(`U₃`, x, z) + `e₃₁`*Diff(phi, x, z) + `c₆₆`*Diff(`U₂`, x, y) + `c₆₆`*Diff(`U₁`, y, y) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₃`, x, z) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₁`, z, z) + `e₁₅`*Diff(phi, x, y) = rho*Diff(`U₁`, t, t);

PDE2 := `c₆₆`*Diff(`U₂`, x, y) + `c₆₆`*Diff(`U₁`, y, x) + `c₁₂`*Diff(`U₁`, x, y) + `c₁₁`*Diff(`U₂`, y, y) + `c₁₃`*Diff(`U₃`, y, z) + `e₃₁`*Diff(phi, z, y) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₃`, y, z) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₂`, y, z) + `e₁₅`*Diff(phi, y, z) = rho*Diff(`U₂`, t, t);

PDE3 := `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₃`, x, x) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₁`, z, x) + `e₁₅`*Diff(phi, y, x) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₃`, y, y) + `c₄₄`*Diff(`U₂`, z, y) + `e₁₅`*Diff(phi, y, y) + `c₁₃`*Diff(`U₁`, x, z) + `c₁₃`*Diff(`U₂`, y, z) + `c₃₃`*Diff(`U₃`, z, z) + `e₃₃`*Diff(phi, z, z) = rho*Diff(`U₃`, t, t);

PDE4 := `e₁₅`*Diff(`U₃`, x, x) + `e₁₅`*Diff(`U₁`, y, x) - `ϵ₁₁`*Diff(phi, x, x) + `e₁₅`*Diff(`U₃`, yx y) + `e₁₅`*Diff(`U₂`, z, y) - `ϵ₁₁`*Diff(phi, y, y) + `e₃₁`*Diff(`U₁`, y, z) + `e₃₁`*Diff(`U₂`, y, z) + `e₃₃`*Diff(`U₃`, x, z) - `ϵ₃₃`*Diff(phi, z, z) = 0;

pds := [PDE1, PDE2, PDE3, PDE4];
sol := pdsolve(pds);

i was solving the above set of pde. but it was showing the following errors,

Error, (in U₁) too many levels of recursion
Error, (in unapply) variables must be unique and of type name
Error, (in U₃) too many levels of recursion
Error, (in phi) too many levels of recursion
Error, (in pdsolve/sys/info) required an indication of the solving variables for the given system

can anyone help me?

This could be simple but I didn't solve it.

How can I dipsplay the output of ifactor(n) in an embedded component.

for example:

ifactor(2600);
                            3    2     
                         (2)  (5)  (13)

I mean the output with the exponents.

Whats better, label or text area ?

a simple example will be very helpfull :)

Why doesn't calling Describe with a sequence input work?

S:= 1,2,3; Describe(S);

Error, (in Describe) invalid input: describe expects its 3rd argument, indent, to be of type string, but received 3
 

I need a function  that computes the rank of a polynomial matrix over complex numbers. For example, for polys := [[x^2, 0, 0], [x^2, y^2, 0], [x^5, 0, 0]] I want to get an answer Rank(Matrix(polys))=3 and for polys := [[x^2, 0, 0], [0, y^2, 0], [x^2, y^2, 0]] I want to get 2. However, usual Rank from Linear algebra package gives wrong answers.
Does such a function exist in Maple?

 I defined the following function L1 and L2 to test, if  Maple is returning the same results. Mathematically they are identical. For all testpoints, L1 returns the correct results (for y := -5 the result is -15).  L2  returns identical results exept for y:=-5. For y:= -5, where you can see on the first glance that the result must be -15,  Maple is returning for L2 a complex number. I am worried about this different treatment of the functions L1 and L2, because I am calculating with functions, where you cannot prove the result as easy as it can be done here. 

L1 := y -> 3*y*((y + 4)^2)^(1/3);
   L1 := proc (y) options operator, arrow, function_assign; 

      3*y*((y+4)^2)^(1/3) end proc

L2 := y -> 3*y*(y + 4)^(2/3);
   L2 := proc (y) options operator, arrow, function_assign; 

      3*y*(y+4)^(2/3) end proc
NULL;
for y from -5 to 0 do
    print("y = ", y, "L1(y)   =  ", L1(1.0*y), "          L2(y)  =,  ", L2(1.0*y));
end do;
  "y =  ", -5, "L1(y)   =  ", -15.0, "          L2(y)  =,  ",     7.500000000 - 12.99038105 I
 "y =  ", -4, "L1(y)   =  ", -0., "          L2(y)  =,  ", -0.
"y =  ", -3, "L1(y)   =  ", -9.0, "          L2(y)  =,  ", -9.0
           "y =  ", -2, "L1(y)   =  ", -9.524406312,              "          L2(y)  =,  ", -9.524406312
           "y =  ", -1, "L1(y)   =  ", -6.240251469,              "          L2(y)  =,  ", -6.240251469
   "y =  ", 0, "L1(y)   =  ", 0., "          L2(y)  =,  ", 0.

In help(EllipticF): Why is the parameter k not called “the modulus of the elliptic function” as in the definition of the inverse Jacobi functions in help(InverseJacobiPQ)?

Instead, it is called “the parameter” which can be confused with the parameter m=k^2 used in other notations (which is refered to "a parameter m" in the EllipticF help page).

Is there a reason for this, or should the parameter definitions of the first, second and thrid elliptic integrals not be aligned with the parameter definitions of the Jacobi functions and their inverses?

DLMF for example defines k as modulus for both, the Elliptic Integrals and the Jacobian Elliptic Functions.

A user who wants to transfer an expression from a different notation to Maple might misinterpret parameters.

map seems to work differently on lists and Matricies.  How do I get map to work on the Matrix?

Download ListMatrixmap.mw

The interrupt button is great for stopping long calculations. But if there is an accidental calculation of a long list that has a mistype for example and the computer is busy calculating behind the scenes getting ready to output to the screen (evaluating icon has a heartbeat) there is no interrupt for that.  You either wait for the output or kill maple and start again (you may be able to save the worksheet before you close it - that might be an option).

I have a set of multivariable polynomial equations. I want to show that each member of the solution set is a solution to the equations and that members of the solution set is unique. I want the result of verify to return one true, not many. Also the result of unique.

Is there a simpler way?

eq-soln-verify.mw

I am trying to generate a plot for DEplot(LVS, [x(t), y(t)], t = -10 .. 10, x = -5 .. 5, y = -5 .. 5, [x(0) = 1, y(0) = 1], stepsize = 0.1, linecolor = blue, thickness = 2, arrows = medium, title = "LVS") but no plot shows up.  What am I doing wrong.

Dear all

I have a first sequence alpha, I would like to define a second sequence beta using a general formula of beta[i]

sequence.mw

Thank you

This is the sort of thing that drives me nuts with Maple.

in the example below, how do I factor (L-Lm) so that the answer is in the form L1 :=L(1-k) instead of -L(k-1)?

Lm := (simplify(k*sqrt(L*L)) assuming (0 < L));
                           Lm := k L

L1 := (factor(L - Lm) assuming (0 < L and 0 < Lm and 0 <= k));
                        L1 := -L (k - 1)

in this simple case, it is easy to understand the result.  However, these kind of  representations in more complex solutions may obfuscate the result making it difficult to interpret its meaning, where as the meaning may be more obvious if the simplification or factorization led to a result formatted more similarly to the way a human would do it.  How do I get Maple to simplify things the more "traditional" way?

Hi,I am looking to create an exercise involving the pairing of 'expressions-figures,' and I want to keep the names f(x), g(x), h(x), and i(x) fixed, with the expressions randomly shuffling. Thank you for your guidance

S6QCMFonctions.mw