Scott,
I am curious about the statement of the problem. This method assumes you are "cutting equal squares from the corners and folding up the sides." This means you are going to remove 4h^2 of the total surface area. My guess is that this is what was intended in the original statement of the problem. I had written a solution not assuming this using Lagrange multipliers. Since this allows for the total surface to be used I get a different solution. I wonder what unit the OP is currently covering in class.
Thomas

Scott,
I am curious about the statement of the problem. This method assumes you are "cutting equal squares from the corners and folding up the sides." This means you are going to remove 4h^2 of the total surface area. My guess is that this is what was intended in the original statement of the problem. I had written a solution not assuming this using Lagrange multipliers. Since this allows for the total surface to be used I get a different solution. I wonder what unit the OP is currently covering in class.
Thomas

That's fascinating! Thanks to both of you for the replies. I wish I had more background in CS, I am learning a lot through using Maple.

That's fascinating! Thanks to both of you for the replies. I wish I had more background in CS, I am learning a lot through using Maple.

I am not sure that it doesn't. The only identity for tan that FunctionAdvisor gives me and trigsubs does not is the one for tan^2. Similarly, for sin and cos the only identities that are missing in trigsubs are the ones for sin^2 and cos^2 respectively. But I don't know how to see if it is referencing the same table as FunctionAdvisor.

I am not sure that it doesn't. The only identity for tan that FunctionAdvisor gives me and trigsubs does not is the one for tan^2. Similarly, for sin and cos the only identities that are missing in trigsubs are the ones for sin^2 and cos^2 respectively. But I don't know how to see if it is referencing the same table as FunctionAdvisor.

I was surprised at first also, but then I decided to experiment with what was missing. After entering this
trigsubs(tan(z)^2);
I think I have a better understanding of how trigsubs works. Also, now I think I can see why trigsubs to treats tan(z) and tan(z)^2 separately, but I don't quite know how to say it.

I was surprised at first also, but then I decided to experiment with what was missing. After entering this
trigsubs(tan(z)^2);
I think I have a better understanding of how trigsubs works. Also, now I think I can see why trigsubs to treats tan(z) and tan(z)^2 separately, but I don't quite know how to say it.

In a topic search for "trig" I get trigsubs as the last member of a short list. It also shows up in the middle of a much longer list in a text search for "subs".
(Maple 11.01 on a Mac)

In a topic search for "trig" I get trigsubs as the last member of a short list. It also shows up in the middle of a much longer list in a text search for "subs".
(Maple 11.01 on a Mac)

John, in case you do not know about it, you may find FunctionAdvisor of interest as well.

John, in case you do not know about it, you may find FunctionAdvisor of interest as well.

Interesting, I wonder what else would lead to the simplification of Re(u) + Re(v) - Re(u+v), similar to what John was looking for. Other than something like u:=a + b*I, v:=c + d*I, ..., done in advance.

Yes, but the next paragraph gives
"The assume command can be used to override these default assumptions. For example, assume(u::complex) tells evalc that u is not necessarily real".
Now consider
restart:
assume(x::complex):
z:=x + conjugate(x);
_
x + x
evalc(z);
_
x + x
simplify(%);
2 Re(x)
versus
restart:
assume(x::complexcons):
z:=x + conjugate(x);
_
x + x
evalc(z);
2 x
simplify(%);
2 x
simplify(z);
2 Re(x)

Additionally, I can't explain this
restart:
assume(x::complexcons):
z:=1/2*(x + conjugate(x)):
w:=-1/2*I*(x - conjugate(x)):
evalc(z);
x
evalc(w);
0
but this seems to work
simplify(z);
Re(x)
simplify(w);
Im(x)