This is exactly what I was looking for.

With regard to other comments. This is not cheating at all (I agree). It's just using an identity.

Thanks for the reply.

This is exactly what I was looking for.

With regard to other comments. This is not cheating at all (I agree). It's just using an identity.

Thanks for the reply.

Hi,

Works like a charm. It had not occurred to me to take the values in the sets as indices into a vector.

I guess I was working from a more general mental model that the elements of the set might not be numbers.

Any clever idea on how that might work? I could probably brute force it by mapping the elements of the sets to numbers, but that seems a bit inelegant.

I had been plowing through the groups package and really hadn't seen a solution. I was a little surprised there was nothing to implement a group action directly.

Thanks for the help.

Hi,

Works like a charm. It had not occurred to me to take the values in the sets as indices into a vector.

I guess I was working from a more general mental model that the elements of the set might not be numbers.

Any clever idea on how that might work? I could probably brute force it by mapping the elements of the sets to numbers, but that seems a bit inelegant.

I had been plowing through the groups package and really hadn't seen a solution. I was a little surprised there was nothing to implement a group action directly.

Thanks for the help.

Thanks. This does the trick. At first I did a dumb-dumb and used convert(-i,name) just like you did. Of course, that was not my index variable!

Thanks. This does the trick. At first I did a dumb-dumb and used convert(-i,name) just like you did. Of course, that was not my index variable!

Hi,

Updating this question I had a while back. Has there been any change in Maple 13 that would allow for the space elimination I had discussed?

Regards.

Hi,

Updating this question I had a while back. Has there been any change in Maple 13 that would allow for the space elimination I had discussed?

Regards.

I would like to suggest this would be a good feature for future versions.

Thanks.

I would like to suggest this would be a good feature for future versions.

Thanks.

Hi,

I'm not sure what you mean by "you have not told yet which is your plot"?

Regards

Hi,

I'm not sure what you mean by "you have not told yet which is your plot"?

Regards

Hi,

Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately, I get the following error message in the classic worksheet.

Warning, cannot create custom logarithmic axes with the inline driver.

It suggests I use the maplet - which of course is the Java implementation and appears to be equivalent to Standard worksheet.

Is this a known bug or does it need to be reported?

Art

Hi,

Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately, I get the following error message in the classic worksheet.

Warning, cannot create custom logarithmic axes with the inline driver.

It suggests I use the maplet - which of course is the Java implementation and appears to be equivalent to Standard worksheet.

Is this a known bug or does it need to be reported?

Art

Hi,

I have been trying that to no avail. I keep getting output that is 540 pt  wide. Even when I get the width to scale up relative to the height, it is at the expense of the height. The width is always 540 pt.

Are you running Maple 12 or 11?

Regards.