The help page mentions: 

But what about the so-called q-hypergeometric function? Though there exist QDifferenceEquations:-IsQHypergeometricTerm and QDifferenceEquations:-QHypergeometricSolution in Maple, they do not seem to represent the function itself. 
For example, how to type the q-Gauss sum (cf. DLMF's §17.6(i)) or verify the last “simple series expression” given in Basic hypergeometric series - Wikipedia? In Mma, one may achieve these with something like 

, 

while 

convert("QHypergeometricPFQ[{a, b}, {c}, q, c/(a b)]", 'FromMma', 'evaluate');
 = 
                              /                 c \
            QHypergeometricPFQ|[a, b], [c], q, ---|
                              \                a b/

So has the q-hypergeometric function been implemented in Maple?

What is the correct way, in code, to check if Maple result contains any one of its own global build in symbols such as _Z or _C or any such symbol it uses?

I need to bypass this result. Currently I check explicitly, but I am sure there is a better way. Here is an example

r:=discont(1/tan(x),x);

This returns 

Currently I do 

if has(r,_Z1)  or has(r,_Z2) or has(r,_Z3) then
etc...

same for _C1, _C2., etc...

But this method is not robust. The problem is that _Z1 is symbol. So I can't check for symbol type in the  result as result could possibly have one of my own symbols there depending on input.

Is there  better way to do this? I am only asking about output of discont here and not any other Maple function. I assume discont uses _Zn only but I am not sure. It could use different symbol? 

Example: Exanding the left hand side below to the right hand side

Unit('kg'*'m'/'s'^2) = Unit('kg')*Unit('m')/Unit('s')^2;

Such functionality would be useful for manipulating rational functions whose coefficients have units that can otherwise only be simplified by substituting new dimensionless independent variables as dicussed here.

Is there statement that can be mapped over an expression that identifies all subsexpressions with units and expands them to a products of units?

Probably not possible but also desireable: A variant that expands derived physical quantities to a product of base units as for example Newton to base units: Unit('N') = Unit('kg')*Unit('m')/Unit('s')^2;

Unit('N') = Unit('kg')*Unit('m')/Unit('s')^2;

Edit: Example from the link above on Unit expressions with compound units

Download Expansion_of_Unit_command_and_simplification_to_m_per_V.mw

Dear Maple experts, I have written a not-very-complicated Maple procedure, including eval, if, etc. However,

Download SiS_Quadratic_(goal).mw

it faces an error saying that Maple cannot determine if the procedure is true. Would you please have a look and advise?

given 

r1:=   -1 <= x and x <= 0;
r2:=   0 <= x and x <= 1;

We see that the above can be simplified to one inequality

-1<= x and x<=1

The closest I found to do this is

r1:=-1 <= x and x <= 0;
r2:=0 <= x and x <= 1;
solve(r1 or r2,x);

which gives RealRange(-1, 1) but I'd like to get the form  -1<= x and x<=1 similar to:

I tried convert to piecewise and simplify and few other things. Is there a trick in Maple to simplify/combine/join inequalites like the above? i.e. convert RealRange(-1, 1) to -1<=x and x<=1 

everything is on the real line.

Maple 2023.2

> kernelopts(version)
   Maple 2023.2, X86 64 LINUX, Nov 24 2023, Build ID 1762575

I got results I did not expect using &^ and mod. So, I created a simple example.

powermod.mw

&^ ... mod does not seem to allow () to set order of execution where ^ ... mod does.

How does &^ ... mod arrive at the values that are different than ^ ... mod?

Tom Dean

How to solve this type of ode in maple

need the value of S, Q, E

how do i change the decimal separator, i cant find the setting anywhere. I already changed all the settings in windows related to this. It displays numbers the way i want it to, by separating decimals using a comma, since that's what I'm used to. My regional settings on windows are also correct, however I can't seem to get maple to use the same separation. It looks like 123.13 when i want it to be 123,13. I couldn't find a solution online so I made an account here in the hope of finding a solution. Thanks

Does anyone know the difference between the standard inv(A)*b to solve A*x=B linear system vs. the A\b usage by Matlab?  I believe they are different in method.

I can correctly solve with MatrixInverse(A).b for x but was wondering the differences, accuracy and overall shortcut command versus typing the full MatrixInverse function.

Just trying to improve my portability knowledge.    

Thanks in Advance,
Bill

Here is a toy example

L:=<<1 | 2 | 3>; <4 | 5 | 6>>; 
(L[1,2], L[2,3]):=(0 $ 2):

As expected, L now equals <<1 | 0 | 3>; <4 | 5 | 0>>

Now I want to make a bulk assigment with the use of seq operator

(seq('L'[q,  q+1] , q=1..2)) := (0 $ 2);

but it fails. Nevertheless

seq('L'[q,  q+1] , q=1..2)

works as needed and returns unevaluated L[1,2], L[2,3]

I would like to simulate the evolution of the so-called B, C, K, W system and SKI combinator calculus in Maple.
The rewrite rules of them are simple: 

However, if I try to evaluate the following example given in the  article, 

Maple will only return an unchanged result: 

restart;
applyrule([cS(x::anything)(y::anything)(z::anything) = x(z)(y(z)), 
   cK(x::anything)(y::anything) = x, cI(x::anything) = x], 
  cS(cK(cS(cI)))(cS(cK(cK))(cI))(x)(y)); # Unable to reduce??? 
 = 
              cS(cK(cS(cI)))(cS(cK(cK))(cI))(x)(y)

I believe that this is not an outlier.
Here are two additional instances: 

> rls := [cS(x::anything)(y::anything)(z::anything) = x(z)(y(z)), cK(x::anything)(y::anything) = x]:
> map2(applyrule, rls, [cS(cS(cS)(cS))(cS)(cS(cS))(cK), cS(cS(cS))(cS)(cS)(cS)(cS(cS)(cK(cK)))]);
                       [cS(cS(cS)(cS))(cS)(cS(cS))(cK), cS(cS(cS))(cS)(cS)(cS)(cS(cS)(cK(cK)))]

>

So why can't `applyrule` apply rules as desired? Meanwhile, how to automatically and thoroughly (like :-eval['recurse'] or MmaTranslator:-Mma:-ReplaceRepeated) apply those transformation rules to 

1. , 
2. , and
3. ? 

I have read something like How to apply a recursive rule in an expression? - MaplePrimes, but they are not the same issue.

I have this overloaded function foo(). 

restart;

foo:= overload(  
        [
        proc(A::integer,$)option overload;
            print("first one, _passed = ", _passed," _npassed = ",_npassed);             
        end proc,

        proc(A::integer,B::integer,$)option overload;
            print("second one  _passed = ", _passed," _npassed = ",_npassed);
        end proc
       ]);

Which works OK. so I can now do 

foo(1)
foo(1,2)

But I wanted to indicate that the proc returns say ::integer , and this where I am stuck, I do not know where to add this ::integer

With non-overloaded proc's, this is the syntax

foo:=proc(A::integer,$)::integer;
     ......
end proc;

but I can't do this with the overloaded function. If I type

foo:= overload(  
        [
        proc(A::integer,$)option overload;
            print("first one, _passed = ", _passed," _npassed = ",_npassed);             
        end proc,

        proc(A::integer,B::integer,$)option overload;
            print("second one  _passed = ", _passed," _npassed = ",_npassed);
        end proc
       ])::integer;

Maple simply does not like it. typing foo(1) now it just echos the definition back.

And these give syntax errors

foo:= overload(  
        [
        proc(A::integer,$)::integer option overload;
            print("first one, _passed = ", _passed," _npassed = ",_npassed);    
        end proc,

        proc(A::integer,B::integer,$)::integer option overload;
            print("second one  _passed = ", _passed," _npassed = ",_npassed);
        end proc
       ]);

Tried many other variations and looked at help but see nothing to far.

Can one add ::type to indicate type proc returns with overloaded proc?

Maple 2023.2.1

I tried to solve differential equations with boundary conditions, but I boundary conditions are tends to infinity. How to sol;ve this?N1.mw

I want to execute a function at least one time. So, I use do ... until ...

However, the function sometimes returns FAIL. So, I looked at help FAIL.

FAIL.mw

The while loop works. The until loop returns an error. evalb(testeq(...)=FAIL) seems overly complicated.

Tom Dean

hello maple team,

i'd really like to know more about the differences among the products ticked above in their different license types

thank you very much in advance for your help dear friends and some who are brothers in Christ Jesus

much Love and regards to you all

julio