@puckie On American keyboards, the underscore or underline is the shifted version of the minus sign. Note that the name y__1 contains two of these. The accent grave is the leftmost key is second row, to the left of number 1. The accents are not necessary in the name y__1 (but it shouldn't make any difference if you do use them). They are necessary for names that contain strange characters, such as `<|>` and the empty name ``, which has no characters.

@puckie No, it works for me in the sense that I get the actual numbers in the Matrix and in the Spreadsheet. I've attached my executed worksheet: Table2.mw

What version of Maple are you using? I have

Maple 17.01 / 64-bit / Windows 8 / Standard GUI

@puckie No, it works for me in the sense that I get the actual numbers in the Matrix and in the Spreadsheet. I've attached my executed worksheet: Table2.mw

What version of Maple are you using? I have

Maple 17.01 / 64-bit / Windows 8 / Standard GUI

@puckie When I execute your worksheet, it works perfectly for me. I didn't make any changes. Try Execute -> Worksheet from the Edit menu.

@puckie When I execute your worksheet, it works perfectly for me. I didn't make any changes. Try Execute -> Worksheet from the Edit menu.

@puckie I didn't see any attached file. Please attach the worksheet itself. Just from your description, I suspect that in the definition of Matrix M, you have F[i](V[i]) instead of the correct F[i](V(j)).

@puckie I didn't see any attached file. Please attach the worksheet itself. Just from your description, I suspect that in the definition of Matrix M, you have F[i](V[i]) instead of the correct F[i](V(j)).

Perhaps this is more clear:

restart:
Digits:= 200:
Order:= 20:
S:= convert(asympt(ln(n!), n), polynom);

evalf[10](evalf(eval(S, n= (1024+83/99)*10^95)/ln(10)));

Perhaps this is more clear:

restart:
Digits:= 200:
Order:= 20:
S:= convert(asympt(ln(n!), n), polynom);

evalf[10](evalf(eval(S, n= (1024+83/99)*10^95)/ln(10)));

Bravo. This is a beautiful and complicated geometric construction done entirely in Maple's geometry package, with step-by-step plots.

@erik10 If you show an example of each situation, I can explain why Maple responded the way that it did.

@erik10 If you show an example of each situation, I can explain why Maple responded the way that it did.

1. Remove all elements of list U from list A:

remove(`in`, A, U);

But searching a list is linear time whereas searching a set is logarithmic time because sets are stored sorted. So the above has time complexity O(|A|*|U|), but a trivial conversion of U to a set lowers the time complexity to O(|A|*ln(|U|)). This makes a huge difference in time when U is large. So, change the above command to

remove(`in`, A, {U[]});

And do likewise for all the other alternatives for removing list U from list A: Replace U with {U[]}.

2. Merge two lists into a list of pairs:

Use zip(`[]`, A, B) instead of zip((a,b)-> [a,b], A, B). This yields about 40% savings because `[]` is a kernel procedure whereas (a,b)-> [a,b] is, of course, user-defined.

@Markiyan Hirnyk Well, if we're having a competition for shortness,

nops([StringTools:-SearchAll("5", sprintf("%q", $1..2013))]);

@Markiyan Hirnyk Well, if we're having a competition for shortness,

nops([StringTools:-SearchAll("5", sprintf("%q", $1..2013))]);