55 Reputation

4 Badges

4 years, 284 days

MaplePrimes Activity

These are replies submitted by MortenZdk

@vv Thanks, I agree that I can consider the view=ymin..ymax a bonus, but that kind of discrepancy always leaves me wondering if it's me or the Maple developers that are not really into the stuff...  appears I must accept the guess-and-try hacker style, even in a mathematics programs ;-)

@ThU The documentation dump in the question was actually taken from "?plot,options".

@ThU Thanks to you both; I will try to learn by example as I go :-)

@ThU Thanks, I appreciate your help.  Do you have a suggestion for what book to read, so I can once and for all understand the way Maple works?  Is it just a matter of reading the Maple User Manual or Programming Guide, or what would you recommend?  I feel like I keep hitting "odd" issues that blocks my work. 

@Carl Love Great, that is much nicer without having to use addition in that odd way.  Thanks.

@acer Thanks, I see now how to control it for 1. [[m]] value.  But I cant say that I can see the logic ;-)

@Carl Love OK, I see that it is possible, but I think I rather skip using physical units then, since the code will be pretty unreadable. 

If code like that is required to use physical units, like in normal pen-and-paper calculations, then I find it hard to believe that anybody are really using Maple with physical units throughout the calculations.

My other question also points in the direction that physical units may look more like a marketing gimmick than a real full-fledged feature.


@Carl Love Thanks for looking into this.  I am also using 2016 fully updated on Win7 64-bit.

Pretty odd if there should be a difference.  I just reran the code, and it gives this result, where I don't remember having made any general condifuration changes:

The text of the code is below:

2. * Unit(m)
1. * Unit(m)

@Carl Love Thanks for your reply.

Using 1. * Unit(m) still gives only m:

Btw. I think it is still meaningful to have exact interger values when a unit is added, since the mathematics part of the equation is still exact, even though the physical properties of must be related to the real world if this ever applied to the formular.

Update: I hope it is possible to use the equation in e.g. solve afterwards, so the value provided by solve includes the right unit.

@tomleslie That will leave d unitless, which is not the way operations on physical values work.  Also, I hoped it was possible to use the equation in solve, so d is returned with a unit.

@acer @CarlLove Thanks to you both, and the example was a toy example, just to simplify things.  Looks like the unapply method is the most versatile, even if it may fail in some cases.

@ThU Thanks, the Programming Guide looks great, also since I prefer Worksheet mode.

@acer Thanks you very much for the long description, and I see the issue with premature evaluation.  Best.

@vv  Still odd that two way to write it are not equivalent, as I point out in my comment.

1 2 3 Page 2 of 3