Christian Wolinski

MaplePrimes Activity


These are replies submitted by Christian Wolinski

also try with
f := F(1, 2, (2*Pi)/0.5);

@ Thank You for verifying this.

@Carl Love I did not want that heap on display in any form... I now attach it to the answer. My apologies.

@Zeineb Ok. So what you want is variable reordering. You have inequality displaying a function of x, sorted by ranges of x. Instead you want the inequality displaying a function of a, sorted by ranges of a. Right?

Properly formatted image. Full Sized

Muting the difficult exponentials in alpha1, alpha2 and solving for mu1, mu2 we get rational expressions. In particular the rational for mu1 expanded numerator and denomerator have 315719 and 417318 terms respectively. One can doubt Digits:=10; will be enough or the fact this will be solved for something other than the trivial (mu1, mu2, alpha1, alpha2) = (0., 0., 0., 0.).

@Carl Love 0 is a constant polynomial. Constant polynomials are degree 0 polynomials. What happened this convention and when was exp accepted the fundament of mathematics in Maple?

@vv I did not notice the OP was asking for x of y rather than y of x.

@tomleslie Domains was always intended as a directory, with only the base implements, to be augmented by the user.

@Jsevillamol Add this line to the start of the procedure: print('procname(args)'); print('procname');. g is initialized to your GI, for example: op('t[1,2]'); op('u[a]');PrincipalIdeal is part of Domains package. Use showstat(PrincipalIdeal);. I think you will find there the procedure you are trying to write yourself.

@minhhieuh2003 ((n, m)->'log[n]'(m))(a, b*x+c);

@Carl Love What I gave you is an empty example. All it does is count invocations of function g in trivial constructions.

The expression is the fundament of SC. A code is an expression and an expression is a code. This duality makes SC codes easy to read and understand. Composing, manipulating, sampling, evaluating, inspecting, decomposing is first in SC. I am not saying "it is available", I am saying "it is the base". And so as I would expect [[[[[[g[0](0)]]]]]] is same as [[[[[[g[0]]]]]]](0), but unexpectedly [[[[[[g[0](0)(0)]]]]]] I find is not [[[[[[g[0]]]]]]](0)(0) nor [[[[[[g[0](0)]]]]]](0). Even more surprisingly the last two are equal. Ofcourse all of this can be explained by kernel rules but it matters not. What is clear Maple is not SC based. It is OOP based. The consequences can be seen in the results.

 

My first Maple was 5.4 and it certainly was SC base. They have alluded they would be implementing modules and overloading. I have easily imagined the implements. Why they sacked SC I cannot imagine.

@vv If you do not know what is expected then you can safely assume this cup is not what you would drink. There are other threads where you would contribute instead.

@Carl Love Codes are meant to be legible, understandable, presentable, explainable. If this is intended by the designers, then how is the following interpreted? Please read the code and compare it to the the results. Interpret the code before it executes. I woke myself from my Maple V slumber into this Maple 2017 horror show:

 

restart;
g:=proc() local j; j:=op(procname); j:=g[j+1]; applyop(x->eval(x,2),0,'j(args)'); end;

f:=[g[0]];
f(0), f(0)(0), f(0)(0)(0);
f:=[[g[0]]];
f(0), f(0)(0), f(0)(0)(0);
f:=[['g[0]']];
f(0), f(0)(0), f(0)(0)(0);
f:=[[''g[0]'']];
f(0), f(0)(0), f(0)(0)(0);
f:=[g[0](0)];
f(0), f(0)(0), f(0)(0)(0);
f:=[[g[0](0)]];
f(0), f(0)(0), f(0)(0)(0);
f:=[['g[0](0)']];
f(0), f(0)(0), f(0)(0)(0);
f:=[[''g[0](0)'']];
f(0), f(0)(0), f(0)(0)(0);

 

@Carl Love Is it safe to say symbolic computation is dead with Maple?

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Page 5 of 11