Scot Gould

## 707 Reputation

11 years, 112 days
Claremont McKenna, Pitzer, Scripps College
Professor of Physics
Upland, California, United States
Dr. Scot Gould is a professor of physics in the W.M. Keck Science Department of Claremont McKenna, Pitzer, and 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 using scanning probe microscopes, particularly those involving natural fibers such as spider silk. More recently, he was involved in developing and sustaining AISS. This full-year multi-unit, non-traditional, interdisciplinary undergraduate science education course 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 Maple's computer algebraic and numerical systems to assist students in modeling and visualizing physical and biological systems. His Dirac-notation-based quantum mechanics course is taught solely through Maple.

## Alternative suggestions...

@WD0HHU Hmm, I'm not entirely sure what symbol fonts you want to enlarge. So, let me make two suggestions instead.

1) Make the graphs smaller.

Just after the restart command, add the line:

plots:-setoptions( size = [350, 350] )

(I have added this line to the initialization file so that all my graphs are smaller.)

2) Set the Zoom Factor to 125% or 150%.

Now re-execute the worksheet, and you will see the fonts are larger compared to the graph size.

I also recommend looking at other examples of Explore. In HELP, look for 'examples, Explore'.

## Updated response...

@C_R I agree the two solutions work. And we agree p__1 is not the same as p__2. Hence, is(p__1 = p__2) should return a false, which it does in some versions.

## Shouldn't the answers still be the same ...

 >
 >
 (1)

Solutions evaluate as the same? Nope

 >
 (2)

And yet,

 >
 (3)

The difference should be 0.

 >
 (4)

Nope.

Test with c  = -1

 >
 (5)

## Did not fully read error message of eval...

@Carl Love Yes,  solve did not choke. Given how I had written the solve expression,  I misread the eval error statement. (It is humongous, as one can expect.)  Specifically, I copied the OP line  solve({equations}, [seq of variables]) rather than solve({equations}, {variables})  eval(s, T[1]) produced a result.

## Too complicated...

Unless I mistyped the problem, even though I declared gamma to be local, the output is too complicated that Maple does not execute. Solving the set of non-linear equations without an output

T:= solve({f1, f2, f3, f4, f5, f6}, [s, v, e, i, q, r]):

for the unknowns and asking for the expression of s

eval(s, T)

produced and "invalid input." Hence, no solution was returned.

## The commands...

@sursumCorda In Maple, variables are altered based on when a command is executed. In Flow, variables are altered based on where the command exists in the worksheet.

Based on my experience teaching new users for a dozen years or so, getting these folks to recognize that if they correct a line in the middle of the calculations, it does not mean the line at the end of the calculation is immediately corrected. The new users will say to me, "My worksheet does not work even though it looks like it should work because the commands are laid out in the correct sequence." I often "fix" their error by going back to the restart command and hitting <Enter><Enter><Enter> several times. (I recommend worksheet mode over document mode for new users.)

In Flow, it is what you see is what you get. If you correct a previous line, all subsequent lines are updated and corrected. This is why when if first attempted to introduce computation into my physics courses, I started with Mathcad. However, I found Maple to be a more robust CAS, so I switched to it.

## Maple Flow <> Maple...

@dharr A worthy attempt.  But it fails.

As one Maplesoft employee once characterized Maple Flow, Flow is a form of Maple lite. What works in Maple does not necessarily work in Maple Flow.

And yet, Maple Flow has one feature that is incredibly powerful, especially for new users. Calculations are performed through input that is applied spatially, not temporally.

## Agreed!...

@acer Agreed on the third parameter. 0..0.99999999

## With Maple, yes. With Maple Flow, maybe ...

While both solutions below work with Maple, neither one works with Maple Flow 2022.  It appears the "||" operator is not recognized. It may work with version 2023. (You do not say which version.)

## Very weird...

@acer The first error is bizarre.

And saying "plot(expr,x) works Ok" is completely unexpected. "expr" has to be assigned somewhere else, yes?

## Humor falls flat...

@acer Yes, I know MakeFunction is an alias name for unapply. Since the 2019 Maple Conference, I have been publically pushing for another name or another function to replace the "what the heck does that mean" unapply procedure.

So, a big thumbs up to Maplesoft for adding the MakeFunction name. (I just wish the addition had been included in the "What's New" notes. I lucked out in finding out about it from a Maplesoft employee.)  And because I am so pleased about the MakeFunction procedure name, I want to ensure folks know about it.

Unfortunately, for this post, my attempt at hyperbole-based humor was misunderstood. Maybe I should have changed the font.

## May I ask a follow-up question?...

@acer What if I want to display multiple variables, each in a separate line using technique 3?  For example:

y1 = x + 1
y2 = x + 2

Currently, they come out as :

y1 = x + 1, y2 = x + 2

## The third way...

@acer LOL! Just after I posted the question, I realized the 3rd way might work. The first two are not simple for me.

I'm glad I'm not the only person who can be frustrated by Explore. It is highly useful, but occasionally it confuses me.

## factor is sufficient...

@acer Lots of useful ideas here. But for my version of 2023.1, factor(expr) is sufficient. The combine procedure does nothing.

But this post leads to the next question: why doesn't the simplify procedure work? Shouldn't it try a number of options, settling on the simplest? (Of course, how does one define "simplest.")

## Makes sense...

@dharr I can still recommend to my colleague to consider GAMMA.

@acer I suspected there was more to the situation given that in playing around I couldn't get the plot to work without the form of plotting dharr had included.

 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Last Page 6 of 22
﻿