- deleted what I had the "oops - sorry" about. I thought I had it wrong, but it looks right after all. It seems like this would be super easy with C & (AND bitwise). I didn't really know until now that bitwise fucntionality wasn't availabe in Maple. It should be easy to make a DLL with C to do it though.

Yes I have. I'm pushing retirement age and have thought about doing something like that once I'm retired, at which time I may actually have enough of this math under my belt to make even a better story. I'm not planning any big career change that would benefit me from the learning I'm doing now so it would be a great feeling if I could be an encouragement to others in such a way. I really want to encourage my grandkids which is perhaps the biggest incentive that got me into this learning later in life. Below are a couple of links showing the throwing of the chain and the rather large wrench used to screw the pipes together, I mentioned above. Fortunately, I still have all my digits, so if I'm not sitting in front of maple or don't have a calculator handy, I can still do math the old fashioned way :-) I've worked a lot of different jobs like that, and always found it interesting how most of the people in the same type of work always wished they had higher education. Many of them could be found reading things related to math, science, and even shakespeare. example 1 example 2

Yes I have. I'm pushing retirement age and have thought about doing something like that once I'm retired, at which time I may actually have enough of this math under my belt to make even a better story. I'm not planning any big career change that would benefit me from the learning I'm doing now so it would be a great feeling if I could be an encouragement to others in such a way. I really want to encourage my grandkids which is perhaps the biggest incentive that got me into this learning later in life. Below are a couple of links showing the throwing of the chain and the rather large wrench used to screw the pipes together, I mentioned above. Fortunately, I still have all my digits, so if I'm not sitting in front of maple or don't have a calculator handy, I can still do math the old fashioned way :-) I've worked a lot of different jobs like that, and always found it interesting how most of the people in the same type of work always wished they had higher education. Many of them could be found reading things related to math, science, and even shakespeare. example 1 example 2

I hate to drag this out, but I find the calculation of indefinite integrals a little abstract, at least for some functions that obviously repeat. Or at least the results that are produced by some functions within Maple. For example the simple function sin(x). It definitely repeats without any change so it seems to me the answer is simply zero - plus whatever offset may be present due to a constant that may exist. Yet Maple says it's undefined and my ti-89 will work on that one indefinitely, or until either I tell it to stop, or the batteries go dead. Secondly, in regard to the use of the FTC in the calculation of integrals, it seems to me as though it should work and work consistantly, even if the curve being integrated requires being broken down into more usable parts, or not be used at all. Before I began working with Maple, I worked with several books that teach calculus. In regard to integration, they all begin the same way - working it out the long way - and then finally on about the last page of the subject, within a sentence or two of the last paragraph on that last page, just happen to mention... Oh, by the way, we just thought you might like to know... there is this thing called the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

I hate to drag this out, but I find the calculation of indefinite integrals a little abstract, at least for some functions that obviously repeat. Or at least the results that are produced by some functions within Maple. For example the simple function sin(x). It definitely repeats without any change so it seems to me the answer is simply zero - plus whatever offset may be present due to a constant that may exist. Yet Maple says it's undefined and my ti-89 will work on that one indefinitely, or until either I tell it to stop, or the batteries go dead. Secondly, in regard to the use of the FTC in the calculation of integrals, it seems to me as though it should work and work consistantly, even if the curve being integrated requires being broken down into more usable parts, or not be used at all. Before I began working with Maple, I worked with several books that teach calculus. In regard to integration, they all begin the same way - working it out the long way - and then finally on about the last page of the subject, within a sentence or two of the last paragraph on that last page, just happen to mention... Oh, by the way, we just thought you might like to know... there is this thing called the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

I definitely think that is a better way to do it.

I definitely think that is a better way to do it.

- allowing Maple to do the complex analysis and then displaying it to me is one of the ways I use Maple as a tool for learning. I'm at a point when I can work a lot of these things out on paper but one such as this is beyond that for me. However, looking at the Maple result, I can then study it and using other resources, figure out how it came to the result. It's always helpful to me to read your responses - thanks. By the way, below is a link to a page and worksheet showing what I did: Example of what I did Seeing the use of the BesselJ function gave me a pretty good idea about what was going on, and then finally plotting it helped me understand things even more. Also with the plot shown, I can now find a definite integral since I know how far it goes.

- allowing Maple to do the complex analysis and then displaying it to me is one of the ways I use Maple as a tool for learning. I'm at a point when I can work a lot of these things out on paper but one such as this is beyond that for me. However, looking at the Maple result, I can then study it and using other resources, figure out how it came to the result. It's always helpful to me to read your responses - thanks. By the way, below is a link to a page and worksheet showing what I did: Example of what I did Seeing the use of the BesselJ function gave me a pretty good idea about what was going on, and then finally plotting it helped me understand things even more. Also with the plot shown, I can now find a definite integral since I know how far it goes.

An example of what I was trying to describe above - Below is a link to an archive containing a simple program that creates and writes to a .ini file using the Windows API function calls, to show how such a file is handled by Vista compared with WinXP. There is a readMe.txt file in the archive that explains everything about what to do to test it in Vista and WinXP as well as the VisualBasic source code files for those who may not feel comfortable just executing the .exe file within the archive. VistaTest.zip

It seems to me as though Maple 11 is doing the correct thing by using Windows API calls to write to that area rather than writing directly to a folder as you seem to indicate was being done with Maple 10. Likewise, that should make it work with Vista too, whereas the other would not, due to more stringent controls concerning writing to things such as .ini files outside the actual users's domain. For example, in WinXP an ini file residing within the Windows folder is easily updated using the Windows API calls while in Vista, when a write is attempted to a .ini file in the Windows folder, the .ini file is first copied to the user's folder area by the OS, updated, and then all subsequent read/writes occur there. As I recall, Win98 did something sort of lamely resembling that with .inf files (used for device driver install). It would make a copy of the .inf file with a really strange name prefix, and place it within a separate folder, rather than creating a new oem_xx.inf file like XP does. It's been a while since my driver writng days in Win98 so some of this information may not be entirely correct. These sort of issues have always been kind of a pain for driver developers as well as just higher-level application developers. You may need to contact Maple support to really find out what is going on and why.

printf("%d", i) would work the same in my example. The thing is, in document mode either method prints after it's completed, while in worksheet mode it prints "live" as I think he wants it to.

Needs worksheet mode for print display, otherwise it's displayed after completed. Here's an example: print in worksheet Maple11 the cpu time there was updated during execution of the loop. -- sorry acer, I didn't notice you were answering this until after I posted a reaply.

I'm glad you found the example helpful. I've added a link within the HTML that I made a link for in my first message above, that goes to a new page and associated Maple-11 worksheet that shows the additional examples that were provided by others here. Below is the original link again: link to html

I'm glad you found the example helpful. I've added a link within the HTML that I made a link for in my first message above, that goes to a new page and associated Maple-11 worksheet that shows the additional examples that were provided by others here. Below is the original link again: link to html