@wb_jerry Your message was perfectly clear. I encountered the same problem myself, and I thought that that may have been your reason. I think that I have found a way around the problem. I will post it soon.

@wb_jerry Your message was perfectly clear. I encountered the same problem myself, and I thought that that may have been your reason. I think that I have found a way around the problem. I will post it soon.

@Markiyan Hirnyk Using additionally causes yet another copy of the variable to be made. I don't know if this is a bug or the intended behavior. If it was intended, I can't see any good reason for it. I hope the following examples provide understanding. Most interesting is that all copies end up with the same assumptions. For more understanding, procedures assume and additionally are written in Maple.

restart;
x0:= x:
assume(x>1);
x1:= x:
x1-x0;
                               0
additionally(x>2);
x2:= x;
                               x~
x1-x2;
                             x~ - x~
x0-x1;
                             x~ - x~
x0-x2;
                               0
ToInert(x0);
          _Inert_LOCALNAME("x~", 18446744073905239102)
ToInert(x1);
          _Inert_LOCALNAME("x~", 18446744073903233086)
ToInert(x2);
          _Inert_LOCALNAME("x~", 18446744073905239102)
about(x0);
Originally x, renamed x~:
  is assumed to be: RealRange(Open(2),infinity)

about(x1);
Originally x, renamed x~:
  is assumed to be: RealRange(Open(2),infinity)

about(x2);
Originally x, renamed x~:
  is assumed to be: RealRange(Open(2),infinity)

@Markiyan Hirnyk Using additionally causes yet another copy of the variable to be made. I don't know if this is a bug or the intended behavior. If it was intended, I can't see any good reason for it. I hope the following examples provide understanding. Most interesting is that all copies end up with the same assumptions. For more understanding, procedures assume and additionally are written in Maple.

restart;
x0:= x:
assume(x>1);
x1:= x:
x1-x0;
                               0
additionally(x>2);
x2:= x;
                               x~
x1-x2;
                             x~ - x~
x0-x1;
                             x~ - x~
x0-x2;
                               0
ToInert(x0);
          _Inert_LOCALNAME("x~", 18446744073905239102)
ToInert(x1);
          _Inert_LOCALNAME("x~", 18446744073903233086)
ToInert(x2);
          _Inert_LOCALNAME("x~", 18446744073905239102)
about(x0);
Originally x, renamed x~:
  is assumed to be: RealRange(Open(2),infinity)

about(x1);
Originally x, renamed x~:
  is assumed to be: RealRange(Open(2),infinity)

about(x2);
Originally x, renamed x~:
  is assumed to be: RealRange(Open(2),infinity)

@Markiyan Hirnyk Hey! That's no way to talk to a student who's trying to learn Maple---especially one who has clearly made a substantial and good-faith effort at doing her own homework before posting.

I discovered another bug. This is about the spacing of indented paragraphs. Go to the recent Question "Problem with assume and solve" and read my Answer "Working with assumed variables". Read it with both Internet Explorer 10.0.03 and Firefox 20.0. Notice the difference in the spacing of the indented paragraphs. This was done with the old editor. I was not able to close up the spaces like I used to be able to do.

The "Sorry, something went wrong" bug is not limited to moderators. I made a test account and tested that.

So far, I've been able to workaround thus:

1. Post a one-line stub Reply/Answer/Comment with Microsoft Internet Explorer 10.
2. Edit that stub in FireFox 19.

Posting full-length in IE can provoke the bug.

Oft times, I cannot even post a stub with FireFox.

So, it's a two-browser workaround.

@Christopher2222

I don't think that that's a factor. I have encountered the bug while posting to some "stale" threads, ones where I think that it's unlikely that there would be simultaneous posters. Also, I have encountered the bug multiple times in the same thread, but spread out over several hours.

@Markiyan Hirnyk 

Certainly I will explain, thus:

Download expand_Int.mw

@Markiyan Hirnyk 

Certainly I will explain, thus:

Download expand_Int.mw

Editting posts always uses the old editor, and thus it always works. So I've taken to making test one-liner posts and then editting them, like I am doing right now.

Also, conversion of post type always works. So, if I can't Reply, for example, I try to make an Answer. If that works, then I convert it to a Reply. But it seems that there are a few threads where I can neither Reply nor Answer.

Just applying expand, without any IntegrationTools, will also do the trick.

Just applying expand, without any IntegrationTools, will also do the trick.

I had a similiar experience in the thread "Log scale with implicitplot": I could post Answers, but not Replies. I was able to post an Answer and then convert it to a Reply. It is also happening in this thread: I can post a Comment, but not a reply.

(I am only providing all this boring information in the hopes that it might help the Administrators fix this bug.)