@roman_pearce Thanks, Roman, for the explanation. Your final result is the same as I what I got by applying the relations individually in reverse order.

So, I guess that you are saying that currently there is no way to do this with a single simplify command using only 0.140 seconds, right?

@roman_pearce Thanks, Roman, for the explanation. Your final result is the same as I what I got by applying the relations individually in reverse order.

So, I guess that you are saying that currently there is no way to do this with a single simplify command using only 0.140 seconds, right?

@erik10 So at the end of the process you want to have a list (or Array) with binomial(45,5) entries, each a real number, right? Does it matter what order they are in? If it doesn't matter, do you need for it to be possible to reconstruct a combination from its list position? Or would a completely random order be okay?

@erik10 So at the end of the process you want to have a list (or Array) with binomial(45,5) entries, each a real number, right? Does it matter what order they are in? If it doesn't matter, do you need for it to be possible to reconstruct a combination from its list position? Or would a completely random order be okay?

@martinz So are you counting the texts, photos, etc.? What accounts for the different sizes of the colored sections?

You say that you "have a Matrix". But your Matrix cannot contain a value like 2013-08-13T00:29:24+0000. It has to be some sort of string.

@casperyc It doesn't matter whether you use { } or [ ]. Either one will take much too long if you try to do all the substitutions at once. The trick is to do them individually and in reverse order.

Casper wrote:

That makes me think, how do Maple actually do it in simplify(kappa, {newpar}) ? Is it done in the natural order? or 'parrellel'?

It is done in an order determined by the monomial ordering. I don't know what that order is by default. Alphabetization could have something to do with it. Studying it further might require a book on Groebner bases and/or Buchberger's algorithm.

@casperyc It doesn't matter whether you use { } or [ ]. Either one will take much too long if you try to do all the substitutions at once. The trick is to do them individually and in reverse order.

Casper wrote:

That makes me think, how do Maple actually do it in simplify(kappa, {newpar}) ? Is it done in the natural order? or 'parrellel'?

It is done in an order determined by the monomial ordering. I don't know what that order is by default. Alphabetization could have something to do with it. Studying it further might require a book on Groebner bases and/or Buchberger's algorithm.

You need to give more-detailed examples of your data. What exactly does "text1" look like? It must contain a number somehow. How exactly is the timestamp represented? It must be some sort of string, but you did not use any quotes. What is the +0000? Is that a timezone representation? Is that value ever different from +0000?

I guess that each bar in the graph represents one month. What do the different colors repesent?

There is probably a syntax error, perhaps unmatched parentheses, in one of the statements after the if and before the else. Please post the code: I can find it quicker than it took me to type this.

Are the time values evenly spaced?

Are the time values evenly spaced?

@Carl Love I should add that the functional way is not always the best way to plot a numeric integration. It can prevent Maple from being able to choose the most efficient numeric algorithm. In particular, if you have an analytic expression for the integrand, then you should not use a procedure as the integrand. You can do this:

plot(z-> Int(x-floor(x), x= 0..z), -4..4);

Jay's method of solving a differential equation and using DEplot is also a fine idea when the plotting variable is one of the limits of integration. But if the plotting variable appears as a parameter in the integrand, that can be difficult or impossible to implement.

@Carl Love I should add that the functional way is not always the best way to plot a numeric integration. It can prevent Maple from being able to choose the most efficient numeric algorithm. In particular, if you have an analytic expression for the integrand, then you should not use a procedure as the integrand. You can do this:

plot(z-> Int(x-floor(x), x= 0..z), -4..4);

Jay's method of solving a differential equation and using DEplot is also a fine idea when the plotting variable is one of the limits of integration. But if the plotting variable appears as a parameter in the integrand, that can be difficult or impossible to implement.

@N00bstyle 

[] means "take the brackets off of a set or list".

So, if L = [a,b,c], then L[] = a,b,c.

Let's go through how the parser interprets rhs(test[2][]). Index expressions associate to the left (*footnote), so the first thing is test[2]. That means the second item of list test. That item is itself a list. The [] means "take the brackets off that", leaving the equation t = number. Then the rhs selects number. In the case of test[2][1], it means "take the second item, then take the first item of that". It could also be expressed test[2,1].

*footnote: "Associates to the left" means that test[2][] is parsed the same as (test[2])[] and not as test([2][]).

Is that a sufficient explanantion?

@N00bstyle 

[] means "take the brackets off of a set or list".

So, if L = [a,b,c], then L[] = a,b,c.

Let's go through how the parser interprets rhs(test[2][]). Index expressions associate to the left (*footnote), so the first thing is test[2]. That means the second item of list test. That item is itself a list. The [] means "take the brackets off that", leaving the equation t = number. Then the rhs selects number. In the case of test[2][1], it means "take the second item, then take the first item of that". It could also be expressed test[2,1].

*footnote: "Associates to the left" means that test[2][] is parsed the same as (test[2])[] and not as test([2][]).

Is that a sufficient explanantion?