@Rouben Rostamian 

Nobody holding its breath. Are you kidding me?

It is like using a slide ruler if you do things on paper now-a-days. Guys with regular calculators are like that compared to guys using something like maple. Yeah they did make it to the moon with a slide rule. But this goes a lot faster.

Whenever you run into something with this book that you cannot explain and has not been shown in the text, you need to find help. And that is exactly what i am doing here. The book was set up for that. So im playing my part. I am glad some people are helping out.

I already know what the question is asking of me, i just dont know how to do it in Maple. I picked the book up just to get better in Maple. Because this is the program that i will be using a lot in engineering and chemistry. I suspect the chemistry part is unexplored, but i could be wrong. It really looks daunting. Its really something i am going to try. I think ill just start at the first chapter and work my way through the book again. I will be doing that too for statics and mechanics. I think it will be great. Just because you may be interested. I sucked at CAD drawing in Solidworks, and now i can draw just about anything. So i really want to get to master this program, it should bring a bright future. Maybe one day i will be happy with what ive achieved. I sure did a lot, but im not where i want to be yet.

The point is, i want to go through the big mountain of books, and want to make it feel like a small hill. Because at the end of the day, that gets the most things done. That will give me the best results, leading to me getting more wealth and goods and results.

Just if you want to look at a book with some outragous formulas in it. You should check out: Modern Exterior Ballistics The Launch And Flight Dynamics Of Symmetric Projectiles 2nd Ed. R. Mc Coy. It is on archive.org. Whenever ive done enough Maple, I also want to look at it(with Maple) just for the hell of it. I bet a job involving that sort of stuff is a Walhallah for Mathematicians.

Really cool. So maybe that book would hold your breath. Or be something that is worth your time.

Any way thank you for replying, its better than nobody saying anything.

Greetings,

The Function

@acer @tomleslie

There are now two graphs for the same formula? How is that? They dont look the like at all. 

 

greetings,

the function 

Download now_it_gets_stranger.mw

@acer 

Thank you for the answer!

Greetings,

the function

@vv

So the "assuming p::real" part makes shure that the value "p" is the same? 

This is a bit unclear to me. They did not mention it in this book in the text going before the equation... I had not way of knowing this. 

Thank you for the answer! It will really help me out a lot!

Greetings,

The Function

@acer 

No that is not what the book says, they mean you want to get the same y value. So the same minimal value. The answer by the book is p=12 and p=-12. But i cannot figure out why. 

The value for the same x value was not that hard to calculate. And i too got p=32 to give the same x value x=3. 

Also i did find out the answer to the first question myself. 


 

Download Applied_Math_Part_1_questions.mw

@acer 
They only gave the result in the example. That is not the syntax. If you have never seen the right syntax linked to the result. There is no way you can expect someone to come up with the right syntax to get the same result. 

The example in the book is incomplete and confusing. Why would they want to publish a book with wrong examples? If it was my book, i would check it a lot of times to be sure that there is no mistake in it. 

Greetings,

The Function

@acer 
Thank you for noting this. I am used to forums, and new topics being opened with a "post", but "ask a question" also opens a new topic. 

Thank you!

Greetings,

The Funtion

@gkokovidis 
Okey, so its the package that is not loaded at the start that is making the trouble. 

"style=point", does the same thing.. Im not too sure but i havent read that they explicitely noted that you would have to activate the whole package at the start. I think that they were hasty in getting the job of wrighting the book done.

I hope my learning curve will be as fast as as learning "Solidworks" CAD program. I can basically draw everything you see around you. And i have never failed to produce a shape that i wanted to create. :)

I really hope to learn this program well so i can do statics/mechanics, dynamics, fluid mechanics, calculating concrete stuctures, ground mechanics/foundations. Also i saw that there was a chemistry part in maple i may want to get to know better while i am also looking forward to complete my chemistry, and organic chemistry books. 

I saw a guy using maple he was 2 semesters ahead of the rest because he was using Maple, and he told me that it goes really quickly if you know how to use it. So i am convinced i will run through these books like a knife through butter. :D 

Greetings,

The Function. 

   

@tomleslie 

That is a neat trick to unassign the statement. I used "restart" command a lot as a work around that problem. It is not to clean IMO. 

So i will definetely use the "unassign" command in the future. 

Greetings,

The Function

@acer 

Well, i wonder how i would have figured it out without you guys. Dont you agree that as a learning book they should have put in the right syntax from the start? How would the result be a good input? 

I constantly find this in books, and to me, it seems that they do it on purpose. Because, how could you look over this and put a book into print just like that? Its not helping at all, but what it does do is that you really look into it, and once it is solved you probably remember it a lot better. 

Still i think it is wrong to put in faulty examples. That is where you base your homework on. If that is off, well like a said: without your help it would the trial and error, or reading through the Maple help, which i did, and that did not bring me any further. 

Greetings,

The Function