Can you not use limit(Opl,hoekvers=2*Pi) ? That's just a thought. You might also temporarily change the division-by-zero default numeric event behaviour, see ?NumericEventHandler acer

Do Ctl-t, Ctl-m, and Ctl-r work for you, to switch to text, 1D maple input, and 2D Math input modes respectively? acer

Why use all the heavy machinery of function-creation, to do a mere evaluation of an expression? It's not known whether the procedure will do evaluations of the expression at many points, or whether the procedure itself might be called for many distinct expressions. One could probably construct examples where each were "worthwhile". Argument checking is good to add, of course. Almost every example procedure posted here on mapleprimes could do with more robust validation of arguments. A user who does not understand that an expression is not a maple function probably will find the simplest example most clear to begin with. My point was that using eval() is likely what the poster should use here, as opposed to subs(). And I would suggest that the original poster appeared unclear as to whether x^2 were an expression or a function. It is good of the first responder to show the difference, as far as evaluation goes. acer

That second approach is so much better than the first, djc, if I might offer an opinion. Consider that Sandor used the term "function", and yet the example clearly shows an expression not any function. Indeed, if he had not used the term function, you might well have not considered that first solution at all. :) And good job on using eval(). There's been a bit too much suggestion to use subs(), when 2-argument eval() is what's called for, around here. It does appear that Sandor is after mathematical evaluation, and not substituton into a structure. acer

1) Could you compute with `assuming` instead of `assume`? Eg, > sqrt((a+b)^2) assuming positive; a + b Or, could you try something like, assume( seq(a[i]>0,i=1..10) ) 2) Maybe the generated results would be shorter if the expression, whose real and imaginary parts are to be extracted, contained I instead of i (to represent the imaginary unit)? See earlier posts in which T22 := subs(i=I,t22) was suggested. 3) Could you not let us know what JJ15 is? 4) Try using add() instead of sum(). acer

The default imaginary unit in Maple is I, not i. You might try issuing T22:=subs(i=I,t22) and work with T22 instead. acer

You can change the prettyprinting level, even in Document mode. interface(prettyprint = 1): That should make a:=b+c come out as you described. On the other hand, it should also disable some of the typesetting. For example, gamma would come out as the full word, gamma, rather than as the nice greek letter symbol. Does anyone know of another way? acer

Please ignore this. Sorry, somehow this dummy post got submitted, and I can only edit it but not delete it. acer

It does look like a bug. It doesn't appear to me to be fixed in 11.01. acer

Compare, (3+4*y^4)/(12*y); diff((3+4*y^4)/(12*y),y); with, (3+4*y^4)/12*y; diff((3+4*y^4)/12*y,y); acer

Do you mean like this? > changecoords(x^2+y^2,[x,y],polar): > lprint(%); x^2*cos(y)^2+x^2*sin(y)^2 > changecoords(x*y*z,[x,y,z],spherical,[r,theta,phi]): > lprint(%); r^3*sin(phi)^2*cos(theta)*sin(theta)*cos(phi) acer

To do it in Maple, see the help-page ?Calculus1,VolumeOfRevolution I am sure that there are lots of references on the web. Here is one. acer

Look, compare these, A := < < 1 | 2 > , < a | 3 > > ; a := 5; A; a := 17; A; lprint(A); restart: A:=matrix([[1,2],[a,3]]); a:=5; evalm(A); A[2,1]; a:=17; A[2,1]; So, you can see that whether using matrix or Matrix, the [2,1] entry does change as `a` changes. The printing differs. But some people will like having `a` get printed, because it shows that A will get updated as `a` changes. And some other people will like having the value of `a` get printed instead. There are other ways in which last_name_eval matrices (arrays) differ from Matrices (rtables) in terms of evaluation rules. Choose what works the way you prefer, perhaps. acer

Without considering anything about this particular integrand, here's an idea. In the definite case, x is known to be nonnegative and real. In the indefinite case, nothing is assumed about x, so it could be negative, or complex valued, etc, which could be causing difficulties in obtaining a general solution. So it'd make more sense to point out instead that this next doesn't produce a result, int(sin(x)*sin(x^3+x), x) assuming x>0; Now notice that Maple 11 returns unevaluated on these too, int(sin(x)*sin(x^3+x), x=0..N) assuming N>0; int(sin(x)*sin(x^3+x), x=1..infinity); So perhaps the infinite integral matches some very special pattern. acer

If you select the superscripted object (the input, not the output) with the mouse, then right-click, you should get a context-menu for operations on it. Try this context-menu operation (which should act in-place): 2-D Math -> Convert To -> Atomic Identifier (checkbox). Once that check-box is checked/toggled, the input object should no longer be a table entry. You may have to repeat this, for each occurence. I'm not sure. And copy & paste of that input object might remove that quality in the new pasted input. But it should behave more like an atomic name. You can even typeset neat things like t^N - t^N as output. acer