Scot Gould

Prof. Scot Gould

372 Reputation

12 Badges

7 years, 314 days
Claremont, California, United States
Dr. Scot Gould is a professor of physics in the W.M. Keck Science Department of Claremont McKenna, Pitzer, Scripps colleges - members of The Claremont Colleges in California. He was involved in the early development of the atomic force microscope. His research has included numerous studies and experiments making us of scanning probe microscopes, particularly those which involved natural fibers such as spider silk. More recently, he was involved in developing and sustaining AISS, a full-year multi-unit non-traditional interdisciplinary undergraduate science education course which integrated topics from biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and computer science. His current interest is integrating computational topics into the physics curriculum. He teaches the use of the computer algebraic and numerical system Maple to assist students in modeling and visualizing physical, and biological, systems. His Dirac-notation based quantum mechanics course is taught solely through Maple. An avid baseball fan, during his spare time, Dr. Gould is traveling, particularly to locations where he can bicycle on smooth, traffic-free roads, visit beaches and/or mountains, and enjoy good food and drink.

MaplePrimes Activity

These are replies submitted by Scot Gould

@Christopher Tocci 

Yep, I missed it. I suspected it was "too good to be true."

Given that it looks like there is only a numerical solution, here is an alternative numerical approach that you might find useful - Explore. I guessed on some ranges. (S = separation, d = diameter..)  


I’m with you. I found the use of “ pf := ‘pf’ ” and the statement, “pf is your table” to be confusing. However, your questions and discussions were highly illuminating. The outcome in my mind is that “pf” is re-assigned as a symbol (in case it had already been assigned or later assigned), which is then interpreted by Maple as a table once indexing occurs.

For a 10 item element, I assume the speed of accessing a table vs. a Array or Vector must be negligable, but becomes significant when the size is large.  Hence, I would still think Vector first, though tables are handy. 


Is there any advantage or disadvantage to using the "output = listprocedure" option?

For me, it is cleaner because one doesn't need to worry about premature evaluation in calculations: 

@nm I like your use of the term Explore. My version isn't better, but simply adds some features that, until recently, I wasn't aware of and have found useful - particuarly the loop and autorun options.  (Mine is also not as clean as yours, but it demonstrates the difference between integer and real scales.)


The process is identical for Windows as an alternative path of creating a PDF. 

@Carl Love Since the task is to write function A(n) where n will be specified, hence the number of terms will be specified before the integral is performed, isn't mul (like add) more appropriate than product?  Hence, I don't see the advantage. 

That said, just like in the case where sum works, which is more readable than add, it is nice that product does work for a definite set of terms. 


This calculation calls product

"restart;     A(n):=(∫)[0]^(infinity)(∏)(h(x/(2*m+1))) ⅆx :  h(x):=(sin(x))/(x):     time(seq(A(n), n=0..8));  "



"restart;  A(n) := (∫)[0]^(infinity)mul(h(x/(2*m+1)), m=0..n) ⅆx :  h(x) := (sin(x))/(x):    time( seq(A(n), n=0..8) );"



restart; h := proc (x) options operator, arrow; sin(x)/x end proc; J := Int(product(h(x/(2*a+1)), a = 0 .. n), x = 0 .. infinity); time(seq(value(eval(J, n = nn)), nn = 0 .. 8))



"restart;  f(n) := (∏)(h(x/(2*m+1))):  h(x):=(sin(x))/(x):  time(seq( f(n), n=0..500));"



"restart;  f(n) := mul(h(x/(2*m+1)), m = 0..n):  h(x):=(sin(x))/(x):  time(seq( f(n), n=0..500));"






@mmcdara With a smile on my face, I'll say that from a physicist's stand point, the normal distrbution is the most natural. It allows me to control the width of the distribution curve as well as where it peaks. However, I admit I'm not as familiar with the binomial distribution much beyond counting coin flips or win-losses in sports. Would you be willing to recommend code that would substitute for win_prob as a function of the three variables?

@graleo Mathematica?

@graleo  Are you sure about the equations? If one define qeq as 1.001*P and not 1.001*P^(1/8.758), the solutions can be plotted. 

@Carl Love If the row labels are positive integers, but are clearly not the index numbers, sorting by RowLabels works perfectly.  I wanted to post this "caution" to complete this discussion. 

@Carl Love , @Joe Riel .  Thanks again for your help with the sort within a sort of DataFrames problems I possed. Back in August. In writing up an example, I came across an unexpected outcome, which caused me to question. The 'key' that Carl suggested works, however, if the row labels don't quite match the row number, Maple will get confused in the sort.  Consequenty, sorting by RowLabels does work most of the time, but not aways, but it appears sorting the row numbers always works. 

restart; interface(rtablesize = [5, 6]); poll_data := Import("")



First line is a the headers, so it is removed. poll_data is redefined starting at line 2.

poll_data := poll_data[2 .. (), () .. ()]



Sort by row labels fails. In this example, the primary value is the negative of value in the first column (a type of descending sort), and the secondary value is from column 3 (by state names).

poll_data[sort(RowLabels(poll_data), 'key' = (proc (n) options operator, arrow; [-poll_data[n, 1], poll_data[n, 3]] end proc)), () .. ()]



Sort by row numbers works.

poll_data[sort([seq(1 .. upperbound(poll_data, 1))], 'key' = (proc (n) options operator, arrow; [-poll_data[n, 1], poll_data[n, 3]] end proc)), () .. ()]



poll_data rows are re-labeled starting from 1. Now sorting by row labels works.

poll_data := DataFrame(poll_data, 'rows' = [seq(1 .. upperbound(poll_data, 1))]); poll_data[sort(RowLabels(poll_data), 'key' = (proc (n) options operator, arrow; [-poll_data[n, 1], poll_data[n, 3]] end proc)), () .. ()]






@graleo   It appears this is the first time you have posted to MaplePrimes.  There are folks here who are happy to help.

Use the green "up arrow" to upload your worksheet. It is likely the problem is found in the definition of the "sys2" variable. 

@acer An unexpected discovery. I am pleased to report that so far, in working with new Maple users, this unexpected behavior has not arisen. I suspect that is because the use of the arrow definition is not taught. However, it is important for the more experienced user to know when teaching Maple.

@Lenny Here is an example of using the prime notation within the 2D Maple input.  I used the variable y instead of f to make it more readable, but it works with f

ode := diff(y(x), x, x, x)+a*(diff(y(x), x, x)) = b

diff(diff(diff(y(x), x), x), x)+a*(diff(diff(y(x), x), x)) = b



cond_eqns := ((D@@2)(y))(w) = 0, (D(y))(w) = 0, y(w) = c

((D@@2)(y))(w) = 0, (D(y))(w) = 0, y(w) = c



sols := dsolve({ode, cond_eqns}, y(x))

y(x) = (1/2)*b*x^2/a-b*exp(-a*x)/(a^3*exp(-a*w))-b*(a*w+1)*x/a^2+(1/2)*(a^2*b*w^2+2*a^3*c+2*a*b*w+2*b)/a^3




@Carl Love 

I concur, there is added complexity and nuances when working with a symbolic language vs. a numeric-based language like C++.  Hence my point - be ready for a paradigm shift. Embrace it. The shift should provide computational and problem-solving gifts one probably has never imagined. (I nolonger see it is as a bug.) 

My only suggestion was that the eval, vs. rtable_eval or eval~ would be a intuitive function call for generating a fully evaluated rtable.  

(That said, even though I like “simplicity” of simplify(), I have followed the recommendation of @acer  by using eval~(). )


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Last Page 1 of 12