## 173 Reputation

15 years, 125 days

## complexcons...

I can't answer your question directly, but maybe this could be used as an option if u and v are intended to be constants. restart: assume(u::complexcons, v::complexcons); Re(u) + Re(v) - Re(u+v); Re(u) + Re(v) - Re(u + v) evalc(%); 0

## serendipity...

If you are thanking me there is no need. Any useful information I provided was purely accidental, a direct result of my lack of understanding (see comments below). So if any thanks are in order they are from me to you, Robert, DJ, and John, since I understand things a little better now. Also, I have a mac so I have never seen classic. I know that the experienced users seem to prefer it. I wish there were a mac version. Thanks again, Thomas

## serendipity...

If you are thanking me there is no need. Any useful information I provided was purely accidental, a direct result of my lack of understanding (see comments below). So if any thanks are in order they are from me to you, Robert, DJ, and John, since I understand things a little better now. Also, I have a mac so I have never seen classic. I know that the experienced users seem to prefer it. I wish there were a mac version. Thanks again, Thomas

## Thanks...

Now I see it. Just more evidence that I should read more and post less. Sorry for the mess. Thanks!

## Thanks...

Now I see it. Just more evidence that I should read more and post less. Sorry for the mess. Thanks!

## Confused...

Ok, now I really don't know what is going on. Look at this restart: p1,p2 := , : r := t->piecewise(t<0, p1, p2): r(1); the output from r(1) is versus restart: r:= t-> piecewise( t<0, , <0,t,0>): r(1); the output from r(1) is <0,1,0> Why did Maple pass the argument to the component functions in the second case and not in the first? I guess my assessment above was premature. I am still thinking piecewise was not intended for vectors, but I don't know. I will leave it to the experts.

## Confused...

Ok, now I really don't know what is going on. Look at this restart: p1,p2 := , : r := t->piecewise(t<0, p1, p2): r(1); the output from r(1) is versus restart: r:= t-> piecewise( t<0, , <0,t,0>): r(1); the output from r(1) is <0,1,0> Why did Maple pass the argument to the component functions in the second case and not in the first? I guess my assessment above was premature. I am still thinking piecewise was not intended for vectors, but I don't know. I will leave it to the experts.

## BTW...

BTW this is what I get with cut and paste and tags Vector(3, {(1) = t, (2) = 0, (3) = t^3}) with lprint Vector[column](3, {(1) = t, (3) = t^3}, datatype = anything, storage = rectangular, order = Fortran_order, shape = [])

## BTW...

BTW this is what I get with cut and paste and tags Vector(3, {(1) = t, (2) = 0, (3) = t^3}) with lprint Vector[column](3, {(1) = t, (3) = t^3}, datatype = anything, storage = rectangular, order = Fortran_order, shape = [])

## vector output...

I didn't mean to imply that piecewise was a problem. I was only pointing out that the construction p1,p2 := , : r :=t-> piecewise( t<0, p1, p2); does not produce a vector valued function in the usual sense. It produces a function that maps the entire set of nonnegative reals onto the object , and the entire set of negative reals onto the object . r(1) evaluates to rather than <1, 1, 0>. It was not clear to me from your post whether or not this was the point you were making. I assumed you were wondering why it did not give <0,0,0> as the limit. Sorry for the confusion.

## vector output...

I didn't mean to imply that piecewise was a problem. I was only pointing out that the construction p1,p2 := , : r :=t-> piecewise( t<0, p1, p2); does not produce a vector valued function in the usual sense. It produces a function that maps the entire set of nonnegative reals onto the object , and the entire set of negative reals onto the object . r(1) evaluates to rather than <1, 1, 0>. It was not clear to me from your post whether or not this was the point you were making. I assumed you were wondering why it did not give <0,0,0> as the limit. Sorry for the confusion.

## graphing a moving particle...

I am not sure what you are after, since I cannot see the points on the plot from this example. However, from the title of your post it seems that animate may be of use to you. Here is a 2D example, from the help page, of a ball moving on a sine wave. ball := proc(x,y) plots[pointplot]([[x,y]],color=blue,symbol=solidcircle,symbolsize=40) end proc: animate(ball, [0,sin(t)], t=0..4*Pi, scaling=constrained, frames=100); sinewave := plot( sin(x), x=0..4*Pi ): animate( ball, [t,sin(t)], t=0..4*Pi, frames=50, background=sinewave, scaling=constrained ); (You have to click on the plot and then click play) Hope this helps.

## graphing a moving particle...

I am not sure what you are after, since I cannot see the points on the plot from this example. However, from the title of your post it seems that animate may be of use to you. Here is a 2D example, from the help page, of a ball moving on a sine wave. ball := proc(x,y) plots[pointplot]([[x,y]],color=blue,symbol=solidcircle,symbolsize=40) end proc: animate(ball, [0,sin(t)], t=0..4*Pi, scaling=constrained, frames=100); sinewave := plot( sin(x), x=0..4*Pi ): animate( ball, [t,sin(t)], t=0..4*Pi, frames=50, background=sinewave, scaling=constrained ); (You have to click on the plot and then click play) Hope this helps.

## multivariable calculus...

You may be interested in looking at carl-madigan/multivariable-calculus as a resource. I think it might offer you some ideas on how to use Maple to do some of the things you are using it for. I have looked at some of it and have found it to be very useful.

## Thanks...

Robert, Thanks, and my apologies to ichyfat and Acer for the misleading post above. It occurs to me that graph is the same in either case I stated above. This is simply more evidence that the we just can't get by without mathematicians:) Thomas
﻿