@nm Much more relevant details can be found with

showstat(`evalf/exp/general`);

But ultimately we see that the exp expression is converted to a hypergeometric function, which is then evaluated by `evalf/hypergeom/kernel`. This is a kernel procedure, and its code cannot be viewed. I think that the numeric evaluation of most transcendental functions in Maple is ultimately handled through this procedure.

@farazhedayati You want to get an explicit symbolic solution to your ODE without making a series approximation. I doubt that that is possible. You may need to settle for a numeric solution.

Your cut-and-pasted plaintext output is unreadable. Can you try uploading a worksheet (rather than a picture) using the the green arrow (the rightmost item on the second line of the MaplePrimes toolbar)? To cut-and-paste Maple output, use your mouse to highlight only the  section of output in your worksheet. Then press Ctrl-C. Then place your cursor in the MaplePrimes editor. Then press Ctrl-V.

@acer

"Weird" is entry 263 in your list. To get the list in alphebetical order, include the line

words:= sort(words):

Why does this list, which is supposed to be from OSPD3, include strictly Maple "words" such as "useint" and "useintat"? Furthermore, why do these particular entries occur twice in the list? The list also includes many strictly proper nouns, such as "Beirut" and "Budweiser".

"Receipt" is spelled thus; it follows the rule.

@Alejandro Jakubi I agree that inert functions are a more robust solution than unevaluation quotes.

Please provide an example with the precise code.

For one thing, Digits = 15 is the cutoff value above which hardware floating point computation is not used. This often affects whether an externally compiled procedure is called.

@Alejandro Jakubi However, it is very important to note that the bindings of a use statement are always resolved when the procedure is defined, not when the procedure is run. If you look at the automatic simplification of your procedure above, you will see that the use statement does not appear. IMO, this makes the situations where use is useful very limited; it is like a temporary macro.

@nm I forgot to mention that the order of the arguments does not need to match the order of the parameters.

@J4James But there is no solution of the form 1 - exp(-x)! The solution to {diff(f(x),x) = 1, f(0) = 0} is f(x) = x. That is all!

rit: See the Wikipedia article on Functional completeness. Yes, all boolean operations can be expressed in terms of negation and implication.

@farazhedayati It does work. The final result does not have any Z in it. What do you care if Maple uses a Z in its intermediary computations?

Please don't take so long to respond.

The final result is

@farazhedayati I don't see any picture.

If you were assigned this by your prof, then I take pity on you.

As part of your Isprime procedure, you had a procedure named flr which was the equivalent of iquo. It only takes a slight modification to flr to turn it into the equivalent of irem.

Irem:= (n,d)-> n - flr(n,d)*d;
    

@Preben Alsholm Yes, I consider it a bug, and a weird one. I wonder why the same obscure symbol, ` $`, is used as both the end-of-parameters marker and the as the separator for elementwise calls.

@rit asked:

is (not (S[0] and S[1]) ) or p correct?

Yes.

if no S list, it is just p

Yes.

if S is empty , why don't they write....

When they write that a proposition is entailed by the empty set, it is just another way of saying that it is a tautology, i.e., that it evaluates to true no matter what boolean values are assigned to its variables.

i ask this because when programming these , should we concern the S list as a wildcard to use whole logic (not (S[0] and S[1]) ) or p rather than p

Statements about entailment are generally considered part of the metalanguage. But in the case of propositional logic, that metalanguage can be represented within the language. (Sorry, I know those two sentences are pretty deep to understand.) You'll need to provide concrete examples of the programming that you are talking about. 

@nm The new operator <~ has the same precedence as <, <=, =, <>, etc., (the relational operators). Additionally, all of these operators are non-associative (i.e., something like a < b < c is not allowed). So parentheses will be required whenever the main operator of the RHS of the assignment is one of these.

It is okay with me if you want to call it the Love assignment operator.