The Matrix Browser (at least on my computer, in Maple 13 Standard under Windows) seems not to work on an Array or Vector with one dimension greater than 10001.  So if aud is your Array, try

> aud[1..10001];

and then double-click on the result.

The size of the Array should be given in the summary that Maple prints.  For example,

> aud;

                         [ 1 .. 1185295 1-D  Array ]
                         [ Data Type: float[8]     ]
                         [ Storage: rectangular    ]
                         [ Order: C_order          ]

That gets the set, but just encloses the set in a list.  You could try

[op({L[]})];

That gets the set, but just encloses the set in a list.  You could try

[op({L[]})];

That's fine if you don't care what order the elements are in.

That's fine if you don't care what order the elements are in.

If I'm correct that f(z) -> infinity as you approach the singularity, that singularity does have physical meaning.  Perhaps there's something wrong with your mathematical model.  You might "keep maple plotting" in this situation, but the results would be meaningless.

If I'm correct that f(z) -> infinity as you approach the singularity, that singularity does have physical meaning.  Perhaps there's something wrong with your mathematical model.  You might "keep maple plotting" in this situation, but the results would be meaningless.

You can't just use convert(L, list) because the expression sequence L would be considered as several different arguments to convert.  However, you could use

> convert(A(L),list);

(where A is an unassigned name).  The only reason I can think of for wanting to do that rather than using square brackets would be if the [ or ] on your keyboard was broken.

You can't just use convert(L, list) because the expression sequence L would be considered as several different arguments to convert.  However, you could use

> convert(A(L),list);

(where A is an unassigned name).  The only reason I can think of for wanting to do that rather than using square brackets would be if the [ or ] on your keyboard was broken.

Ahh.. the problem wasn't e(z) becoming 0, it was e(z)^2 - 0.27*(1+z)^3 becoming 0.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that f will become unbounded as this approaches 0.  So I really doubt that the question of continuing beyond the singularity can have any meaningful answer.

Ahh.. the problem wasn't e(z) becoming 0, it was e(z)^2 - 0.27*(1+z)^3 becoming 0.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that f will become unbounded as this approaches 0.  So I really doubt that the question of continuing beyond the singularity can have any meaningful answer.

Ah, I wasn't correctly using the flat option.

> MyCperm := proc(L)
    proc(Plt)
        evalindets[flat](Plt, specfunc(anything, {COLOR,COLOUR}),
             c -> subsop(2=op(L[1]+1,c), 3=op(L[2]+1,c),
                  4=op(L[3]+1,c), c))
     end proc end proc;

So for example:

> with(plots): with(plottools):
  Gambia:= display(rectangle([0,0],[3,0.68],colour=green),
  rectangle([0,0.78],[3,1.22],colour=blue),
  rectangle([0,1.32],[3,2],colour=red),
  rectangle([0,0],[3,2]),scaling=constrained,axes=none);  

> Gambia; 

> Cperm([2,3,1])(Gambia); # this is wrong!

> MyCperm([2,3,1])(Gambia); # this is right!

Ah, I wasn't correctly using the flat option.

> MyCperm := proc(L)
    proc(Plt)
        evalindets[flat](Plt, specfunc(anything, {COLOR,COLOUR}),
             c -> subsop(2=op(L[1]+1,c), 3=op(L[2]+1,c),
                  4=op(L[3]+1,c), c))
     end proc end proc;

So for example:

> with(plots): with(plottools):
  Gambia:= display(rectangle([0,0],[3,0.68],colour=green),
  rectangle([0,0.78],[3,1.22],colour=blue),
  rectangle([0,1.32],[3,2],colour=red),
  rectangle([0,0],[3,2]),scaling=constrained,axes=none);  

> Gambia; 

> Cperm([2,3,1])(Gambia); # this is wrong!

> MyCperm([2,3,1])(Gambia); # this is right!

Indeed, the improper integral converges only if theta > 0 and alpha > 0. 

> int(gammadist,x=0..infinity) assuming alpha > 0, theta > 0;

1/(theta^alpha*theta^(-alpha))

> simplify(%);

1

Over the years, Maple has become more careful about checking for convergence.  The downside of this improvement (and yes, it is an improvement) is that you often need to make assumptions on the variables or parameters in order to get the results you want. 

Indeed, the improper integral converges only if theta > 0 and alpha > 0. 

> int(gammadist,x=0..infinity) assuming alpha > 0, theta > 0;

1/(theta^alpha*theta^(-alpha))

> simplify(%);

1

Over the years, Maple has become more careful about checking for convergence.  The downside of this improvement (and yes, it is an improvement) is that you often need to make assumptions on the variables or parameters in order to get the results you want.