I'm sorrry, I do not follow your reasoning.  Why is help crashing?  What does libname have to do with it?

When maple help works the libname is "C:\Program Files\Maple 13/lib" and when it does not work it is the same.

Yes, onlinehelp is a clear workaround.

Should I just use something other than library tools to save data generated in a worksheet?
If so, what?

Thanks for your help.

Michael

Before and after I use "Save('a')" it is "C:\Program FIles\ Maple 13/lib".

You may be right, but I have more details to add, just in case its a usage problem.

First, if I close the program and open it up again, help is available.

After the command "with(LibraryTools);" help is still available.
After the command "savelibname := "c:\\somedir\\lib";" help is available.

After the command "Save('a');" no help: "No matches found."

"restart;" no help.
New worksheet, "restart;", no help.

 

I find relief in knowing that others think it is strange. I also think the documentation on coulditbe is thin. It isn't covered much in the manuals I've read either. Fortunately, the simplex package will do the things I need it to do. I'd like to know the resolution if one reached. By the way, I can come up with pedantic examples of 'is' not working. This is not nearly as shocking, but here it is. is(x>y) assuming x > 0, y > 0, x < y, x > 3*y, x < 4*y, x<5*y, x<6*y; false is(x>y) assuming x > 0, y < 0, x < y, x > 3*y, x < 4*y, x<5*y; true Technically, the second answer is correct, since the assumptions cannot be satisfied simultaneously. My problem is not so much that it gets the wrong answer some of the time, it's that it gets different answers based upon the number of redundant assumption. This example comes from Maple 9. One may ask why 'is' or 'coulditbe' should handle redundant assumptions. I agree that it may not be necessary, however with three valued logic one may expect it to. Additionally, these functions do handle explicit contradiction, for instance: is(x>0) assuming x < 1/2*y, x >1 +1/2*y; Error, (in assuming) contradictory assumptions

I find relief in knowing that others think it is strange. I also think the documentation on coulditbe is thin. It isn't covered much in the manuals I've read either. Fortunately, the simplex package will do the things I need it to do. I'd like to know the resolution if one reached. By the way, I can come up with pedantic examples of 'is' not working. This is not nearly as shocking, but here it is. is(x>y) assuming x > 0, y > 0, x < y, x > 3*y, x < 4*y, x<5*y, x<6*y; false is(x>y) assuming x > 0, y < 0, x < y, x > 3*y, x < 4*y, x<5*y; true Technically, the second answer is correct, since the assumptions cannot be satisfied simultaneously. My problem is not so much that it gets the wrong answer some of the time, it's that it gets different answers based upon the number of redundant assumption. This example comes from Maple 9. One may ask why 'is' or 'coulditbe' should handle redundant assumptions. I agree that it may not be necessary, however with three valued logic one may expect it to. Additionally, these functions do handle explicit contradiction, for instance: is(x>0) assuming x < 1/2*y, x >1 +1/2*y; Error, (in assuming) contradictory assumptions

Thanks! I will need to look into the simplex package. It sounds like it will be of help in more than just this instance.

Thanks! I will need to look into the simplex package. It sounds like it will be of help in more than just this instance.

Sure, but the expression is clearly false. Removing a redundant restriction reveals just that. Also, choosing some subsets of the assumptions leads to FAIL in maple 9 and 9.5. I am trying to write a work around that eliminates redundant restrictions. The procedure that I wrote (which suggested a problem in the first place) works for 719 of the 720 possible orderings of the 6 expressions I pass to it, given my 6 restrictions. I wouldn't have know there was a bug if it wasn't for that 1 particular ordering that clearly fails, though my procedure seems to think it is fine. A fail I suppose would at least give me some warning.

Sure, but the expression is clearly false. Removing a redundant restriction reveals just that. Also, choosing some subsets of the assumptions leads to FAIL in maple 9 and 9.5. I am trying to write a work around that eliminates redundant restrictions. The procedure that I wrote (which suggested a problem in the first place) works for 719 of the 720 possible orderings of the 6 expressions I pass to it, given my 6 restrictions. I wouldn't have know there was a bug if it wasn't for that 1 particular ordering that clearly fails, though my procedure seems to think it is fine. A fail I suppose would at least give me some warning.