It is evident that by repeated applications of the double-angle and product trigonometric identities, one may transform any monomial of the form sin(x)^p * cos(y)^q, where p and q are positive integers, to a linear combination of only first powers of sines and cosines.

Example 1:  The monomial  4*sin(x)*cos(y)^2 is equivalent to

Example 2: The monomial 16*sin(x)^2*cos(y)^3 is equivalent to             

How does one write a Maple procedure to do that transformation in the general case of sin(x)^p * cos(y)^q?

Dear All,

Please, could anyone point me out how to draw the beautiful Apollonian Gasket using Maple?

Thank you.

Very kind wishes,

Wang Zhe

We just posted a submission to the Maple Application Center that I thought people might be interested in. Mathematics for Chemistry isn't a typical application - it's an e-book, written in Maple by J.F. Ogilvie. It covers both standard mathematics topics chemistry students are expected to know,  such as calculus and linear algebra, as well as chemistry-specific topics like chemical equilbrium, quantum chemistry, and nuclear-magnetic-resonance spectra.

There's lots of interesting content on the Application Center, and the range of topics is always fascinating, but it's not every day I see an entire e-book come across my desk(top)!

If you are interested, you can find it on the Application Center, here: Mathematics for Chemistry

eithne

Hello!

I crwated a polyhedron from by grouping vertices to faces, and faces to a shell. My goal is to convert the obtained object into a polyhedron, which behaves similarly as e.g. Archimedean solids generated by Maple. Is it possible? Thank you in advance!

Bests,

Andrzej

hello. how can i solve this integral. thank you

I have an update below

I am student, and bought Maple student version 2017 and went through verification and activation with no probems and been using Maple for number of days.

But few days ago, I disconnected my internet service provider, and so now I have no access to the internet from my home PC where I installed Maple (I am writing this from  library)

Now at home, when I start Maple, I get a message saying that my licence will expire in 10 or 9  days or so. I do not understand this messge. Why it comes up now and did not come up before when I had internet access? 

Does one need to be connected to the internet all the time to use Maple? What if one does not have internet access?

I did remove one monitor from my PC also. Do you think Maple detected change in PC (one less monitor) and now it thinks this is new PC? But this makes no sense.

How do I tell Maple I have activated my Maple if I do not have internet access?

Update

After installing Maple 2017.1, now each time I disconnect from the internet, I am not able to start Maple !  I get this error

When I connect to the internet and try again, Maple comes up OK and it works. (it does NOT ask me to activate). I have allready activated OK before. This message only comes up when I am not connected to the internet.

This tells me Maple is trying to connect to the internet each time for some reason to verify my installation? But when if I do not want to be connected to the internet and still use Maple?

I never installed beta Maple or anything like this before. What to do to make Maple start without being connected to the internet? I did not change my PC.

While preparing for a recent webinar, I ran across something that didn't behave the same way in Maple 2017 as it did in previous releases. In particular, it was the failure of the over-dot notation for t-derivatives to display with the over-dot. Turns out that this is due to a change in behavior of typesetting that was detailed in the What's New page for Maple 2017, a page I had looked at many times in the last few months, but apparently didn't comprehend fully. The details are below.

Prior to Maple 2017, under the aegis of extended typesetting, the following two lines of code would alert Maple that the over-dot notation for t-derivatives should be used in the output display.

However, this changed in Maple 2017. Extended typesetting is now the default, but these two lines of code are no longer sufficient to induce Maple to display the over-dot in output. Indeed, we would now have

as output. The change is documented in the following paragraph

lifted from the help page 

Thus, it now takes the additional command

to induce Maple to display the over-dot notation in output.

I must confess that, even though I pored over the "What's New" pages for Maple 2017, I completely missed the import of this change to typesetting. I stumbled over the issue while preparing for an upcoming webinar, and frantically sent out help calls to the developers back in the building. Fortunately, I was quickly set straight on the matter, but was disappointed in my own reading of all the implications of the typesetting changes in Maple 2017. So perhaps this note will alert other users to the changes, and to the help page wherein one finds those essential bits of information needed to complete the tasks we set for ourselves.

And one more thing - I was cautioned that the "= true" was essential. Without it, the command would act as a query, echoing the present state of the setting, and not making the desired change to the setting.
 

Hello Members,

I've to export some Maple lines to a LaTex file. I used the Maple command "Export as" and I saved the file like a .tex file. But when I open that file, it doesn't work because my LaTex doesn't recognise the package \usepackage{maplestd2e}.

How can I do? I put also my file in the post!

Thank you :)

hi, learners of maple like me, i was handling a project,but i came across this problem,and i began to doubt the accuracy of maple-plot,,,

very simply expression,result3,changing with the parameter f,

i first plot the f from 100 to 5000,

than i need to watch closer,

so i change the define domain of parameter f, plot f from 100 to 1000,  

and the result of plot definitely  differs from the previous one. 

a low vally in the first figure (f in the scale of 100-1000),disappears! that's insane...

you can see below,

anyone see it, can you give me some clue? i really do not understand this. why ,why why,,

Download test.mw

doubt.mw

Equation21v2.mw

Hi,

When I do the derivation of a summation in order to one single term should not the result come out of the summation in the example attached in the file doubt? for example the derivative should not have yielded Ci and not the summation of Ci because for example if want the derivative in order to y1 it should be only C1 and not the summation of Ci.

The same happen when I go to a more complex case like in the file Equation21v2, should the result in the last double summation before T drop the summation over i to NC?

Many thanks in advance for your help!

Hi,

I have a problem of having a problem to solve the following equation with the this error. I found out that it might be due to that I have a differential that is squared and maple could not calculate it as after square root it will have positive and negative. May I know how to overcome this other than changing my equations?

ODE_summarize.mw
 

Hi Guyz 

I have a problem with a numerical solution.

with the boundary conditions mentioned in the file we want to solve the differential equation numerically and find omega by using the shooting method

numshooting.mw

i want to know how  to save a  a constant of a funcition as a variable.

for example:
eq:=x=1-3*t

i want to save 3 as variable
c:=3

I have a workbook that derives the Cobb-Douglas factor demand functions:

The final formulas (10) and (11) are not in the same format as the formulas in my textbook (by Hal Varian). In fact my last formulas betray no obvious symmetry while Varian's forms do.

Download cobb-douglas.mw

Here is a picture of them scraped from the text.

Is it possible to instruct Maple to obtain these forms?

Maple 17 is very exciting so I am hopeful ....

P.

Hi everyone,

Instead of writing:

a[1] < b[1] or (a[1] = b[1] and a[2] < b[2]) or (a[1] = b[1] and a[2] = b[2] and a[3] < b[3]) or (a[1] = b[1] and a[2] = b[2] and a[3] = b[3] and a[4] < b[4]) or (a[1] = b[1] and a[2] = b[2] and a[3] = b[3] and a[4] = b[4] and a[5] < b[5])...

Is there a more convenient way to do so? Plus, what if a[1] = b[1] and a[2] = b[2] and ... and a[99] = b[99] and a[100] < b[100]? I do not imagine writhing everything.

Thanks for your help.