@mzaman 

Let's start with the 1D input. After you've completed that we can discuss evalhf.

Go to the menu Tools -> Options -> Display -> Input Display, Select "Maple Notation". Click on the Interface tab. Go to "Default format for new worksheets". Select "Worksheet". Click on Apply Globally at the botton of the page.

Now use the 1D input worksheet that I already posted on your previous Question. Edit it to reflect the new parts of your program. When you finish that, repost it, and I'll put in the evalhf.

I can't access your paper from that website. It won't let me join as myself---it requires an institution. So, would you please provide an accessible version of your paper?

@Carl Love 

Since you claimed in your Question that e and d were inverses, I thought that you would have some response to my claim that they aren't. How did you generate e, given p, q, and d?

@Rouben Rostamian  

Okay, I see your point. I had assumed that the instructors were aware of MaplePrimes. I'll change my Answer.

Could you show an example of using the command and getting that output?

@Bendesarts 

The error message in your picture is too small to read. Would you please type it in? I think that it says that the package does not contain an angular_velocity command. The results of the with command indicate that show is the only command in the package.

Your Question contains no text and no attached file.

@Bendesarts 

There is no source code stored in the .mla file; you'll have to use a method like mine with those. If the package is claimed to be "open source", then there should be a source-code file with the package---either a plaintext file or a worksheet.

@sercan 

I haven't been able to prove the inequality with Maple or otherwise. Is this an exercise, i.e., do you know that a proof exists and you just have to find it? Or is this original research?

Please provide the p, q, e, and d for which it doesn't work.

The procedure only works for b < N. Is that the case? For b >= N, you need to divide the plaintext into smaller chunks.

@Preben Alsholm 

A great substitution; I didn't know that IntegrationTools:-Change could make use of assumptions. Vote up. In some versions of Maple (notably Maple 16), an expand may be required before the eval to force the y outside the integral to cancel with the y in the denominator of the integrand.

If Gamma is entered as the exact value 1/5 rather than 0.2, you can use value on the integral and prove that it is exactly 1.

@ecterrab 

If you are using 1D input, there is a preliminary step needed before you can use Edgardo's Answer. Highlight the expression, right click, and Convert To -> 2D Math Input. Then follow Edgardo's instructions.

@hazif firas 

Sorry, I can't solve your problem. I got past the "initial Newton..." error, but then I get a division by zero.

I just want to point out that Runge Kutta Fehlberg 4 5 (rkf45) is a method for IVPs, not BVPs. There is no way to tell Maple to solve a BVP with rkf45.

I haven't looked at your worksheet yet (I will). But I want to point out that undefined and Float(undefined) are not errors; they are mathematically valid answers. For example limit(1/x, x= 0) is undefined.

@sercan 

Can you supply ranges for the constants and variables? For example, are any of them guaranteed to be positive? Are there also relations such as w > c that hold? Maple can often prove an inequality when given some assumptions on the variables.

By "better", I assume that you mean ProfitB >= ProfitC for all values of the variables and and constants. Is that right? Then there's really no distinction between variables and constants.