@JamesK Please attach the worksheet where you get the error. I don't understand why you are getting the error about Prefix not being exported (although I do know what the error message means). And what version of Maple are you using?

As for the Int and diff, I'll have to think about that a bit. But they will be handled like any other unevaluated function call. You can get a function tree for an entire worksheet by using the Worksheet package. And my module should handle it and give you a graph. You'd be able to work with the graph programatically, but it would be too big to plot.

@JamesK Please attach the worksheet where you get the error. I don't understand why you are getting the error about Prefix not being exported (although I do know what the error message means). And what version of Maple are you using?

As for the Int and diff, I'll have to think about that a bit. But they will be handled like any other unevaluated function call. You can get a function tree for an entire worksheet by using the Worksheet package. And my module should handle it and give you a graph. You'd be able to work with the graph programatically, but it would be too big to plot.

@STHence Okay, I am getting the problem now. The eliminate and dsolve take a minute or two, but the plot takes an incredibly long time. I let it run for about 45 minutes of processor time before I killed it.

The solution provided by dsolve is very complicated. The solution procedure sol is 90MB of code. I tried to evaluate a single point, sol(1.). I let it run for 5 minutes before I killed it. Perhaps simplifying the input equations after eliminate but before dsolve will help. Or maybe it would be better to do the integral the old way (rather than in dsolve) in this case.

Edit: Update: I took out the last ODE, the one to get the integral. After that, the dsolve ran in 22 seconds, and the generated procedure sol is 1.3 MB, so it's still complicated. To evaluate it at just one point, sol(1.), took 53 minutes of CPU time. So, even without the last ODE, it would near impossible to get a plot of the other functions.

@STHence Okay, I am getting the problem now. The eliminate and dsolve take a minute or two, but the plot takes an incredibly long time. I let it run for about 45 minutes of processor time before I killed it.

The solution provided by dsolve is very complicated. The solution procedure sol is 90MB of code. I tried to evaluate a single point, sol(1.). I let it run for 5 minutes before I killed it. Perhaps simplifying the input equations after eliminate but before dsolve will help. Or maybe it would be better to do the integral the old way (rather than in dsolve) in this case.

Edit: Update: I took out the last ODE, the one to get the integral. After that, the dsolve ran in 22 seconds, and the generated procedure sol is 1.3 MB, so it's still complicated. To evaluate it at just one point, sol(1.), took 53 minutes of CPU time. So, even without the last ODE, it would near impossible to get a plot of the other functions.

@JamesK You can work in a new worksheet as long as you "Execute Code" as I described, AND the new worksheet is running in the same kernel server as the original.

Alternatively, you can save the code from the Code Edit Region to a plain text file (like with Windows Notepad). Let's say you called the file "FunctionToTree.mpl". Then make the first command in your new worksheet

read "C:/.../.../FunctionToTree.mpl";

where C:/.../.../ is whatever is appropriate for your system. If you do it this way, then it doesn't matter which kernel server you use.

@JamesK You can work in a new worksheet as long as you "Execute Code" as I described, AND the new worksheet is running in the same kernel server as the original.

Alternatively, you can save the code from the Code Edit Region to a plain text file (like with Windows Notepad). Let's say you called the file "FunctionToTree.mpl". Then make the first command in your new worksheet

read "C:/.../.../FunctionToTree.mpl";

where C:/.../.../ is whatever is appropriate for your system. If you do it this way, then it doesn't matter which kernel server you use.

@JamesK Oh, did you enter the blue code "FunctionToTree:= module()..." that your transcript shows? You're not supposed to do that. Put your mouse cursor in the code window, right click, and select "Execute Code". Then execute the commands in red. The blue code is just the output of the "Execute Code".

@JamesK Oh, did you enter the blue code "FunctionToTree:= module()..." that your transcript shows? You're not supposed to do that. Put your mouse cursor in the code window, right click, and select "Execute Code". Then execute the commands in red. The blue code is just the output of the "Execute Code".

Despite my enthusiasm (as a challenge for my own amusement) for computing the actual answer, if it actually turns out to be possible to do so, I agree with G A Edgar.

Despite my enthusiasm (as a challenge for my own amusement) for computing the actual answer, if it actually turns out to be possible to do so, I agree with G A Edgar.

@JamesK I find your error message very strange. What command did you give? It looks like you might have given that command ModuleApply(...) rather than FunctionToTree(...). Can you post a worksheet where you get the error?

If you've downloaded the worksheet I attached, then you need to "Execute Cute" in the Code Edit Region. Put your mouse in the box that contains the code, right click, and select Execute Code.

@JamesK I find your error message very strange. What command did you give? It looks like you might have given that command ModuleApply(...) rather than FunctionToTree(...). Can you post a worksheet where you get the error?

If you've downloaded the worksheet I attached, then you need to "Execute Cute" in the Code Edit Region. Put your mouse in the box that contains the code, right click, and select Execute Code.

@JamesK I just posted a module with the required functionality in your followup thread.

@JamesK I just posted a module with the required functionality in your followup thread.

@PatrickT The smoothness of the Postscript export does make the source of the problem seem to be something more akin to pixelation than to, say, numerical instability. I noticed that the problem was still there upon export to JPEG, which usually has a smoothing and blurring effect. Would someone who has a printer please print the original "jagged and nasty" plot?