Sure, the bad behaviour might be on the part of the webmail system. But a compressed worksheet format might sidestep it nicely. Thanks for your details, acer

Thanks for the information, Scott. But it doesn't sound so promising. It'd be reasonable to surmise that this has been known for quite some time already. acer

If that explanation is accurate (and it does sound plausible) then there may be a great many other users who also experience the problem. If that's so then it'd be well worth fixing. acer

If that explanation is accurate (and it does sound plausible) then there may be a great many other users who also experience the problem. If that's so then it'd be well worth fixing. acer

That's very interesting. Now all that I wonder is why I get plotting error in the maplenet client, when I try to follow the link in the posting. (I could download the .mw,.. but I wanted to try the viewer.) I get a little pop-up, whose "details" show a lot of java exception messages. Is there a certain recommended jvm version to have for this? Right now, my Linux machine says, $ which java /usr/local/java/j2sdk1.4.2/jre/bin/java acer

Hello Jacques, Could you give a reference to that algorithm? Would it suffice to use LinearAlgebra:-Nullspace in the usual way, for each eigenvalue? acer

Hello Jacques, Could you give a reference to that algorithm? Would it suffice to use LinearAlgebra:-Nullspace in the usual way, for each eigenvalue? acer

Another benefit of having large projects' maple source in text files is that one can run mint against them. That is a syntax and code analyzer for maple. See ?mint for the help-page. On Windows it's called wmint.exe , and allows one to browse, select, and open a test source file. (Often the extension .mpl is used for such files.) The mint program may not be as up-to-date as it could be, but it's still useful. acer

The ability to re-use the code can be done with another refinement. Instead of using `read` on the source file one can `savelib` it to a .mla archive. (See ?LibraryTools, or ?savelib). Once the code is saved into a .mla library, then in any other worksheet or session one can access it simply by appending to `libname`. (See ?libname) Once comfortable with that, the following observation can be useful. If the code has been abstracted out of the worksheets that run it, then one may never need to simple `read` the source file into any session except the one in which it gets `savelib`d. A natural followup is to then hard-code the appropriate savelib/LibraryTools commands right into the end of the source file. Or comment it out when not being actively developed. One could even write a batch file that simply runs the source file with the commandline interface. When run, it saves the program to the right .mla. The tasks are then nicely split: - editing with your favourite editor - saving the source to a .mla archive - adding the right libname to worksheets. But these actions can all be run concurrently. I usually have a restart in my worksheet, too, so that I can edit, re-load, and re-run examples, all without having to close out my worksheet session. Another refinement is to have a "standard" place that you put your .mla archives. One can probably create a desktop icon that starts maple with some extra -b options, so that that location is automatically appended to libname. acer

What exactly do you mean, when you say that Maple 11 is too slow on your machine? Could it be that it's simply the Standard (Java) Graphical User Interface (GUI) that is slower for you, in Maple 11? If that's the case, and if you are using Windows or Linux/Unix, then you might try using the "Classic" interface instead. On Linux/Unix that is started with a command like `maple -cw`. On Windows it should have its own icon on the desktop, and if you didn't install the desktop icons then the binary is maplew.exe I believe. acer

I'd like say that what Joe has described is a very good way to develop and maintain non-trivial Maple code source. To my mind, it's not a question of Windows vs Unix. It's a question of scripts & commandline versus GUI, for non-trivial code development and maintenance. Windows too has batch files. A plaintext file will always be accessible, while .mla and .mw may be less reliable. The procedures and modules that comprise one's source may be saved into a .mla archive, and used conveniently from any worksheet (not just that one containing the code!) via the libname mechanism. Source being stored in plaintext files, combined with use of the "TTY" shell-based Maple interface (cmaple.exe), allows one to use the #define and #include directives as implemented in Maple. External editors can provide very nice Maple language specific syntax highlighting. There are plenty of editors for Windows, even graphical ones, that provide automatic indentation in a solid way. The Worksheet and Document facilities of the Maple GUI are very nice for developing worksheets and documents. But there are better ways to develop and maintain a Maple code base. acer

Thanks for that strong point. I find your point about abstracted sizes of Matrices to be compelling. So, attributes on names might do. So no evaln might be needed. And it might be less difficult to code. Allowing for any concrete qualities, such as sub-blocks, might be hard, though. As for last-name-eval, I agree. I wasn't suggesting adding it to anything else. I was wondering more whether something like evalm() could be useful for some new ALA, to provide a way to generate concrete rtables from abstract LA ones. ps. By mistake I added this as a general comment to the top of the thread. Sorry. I meant it as a reply to Jacque's Abstract matrices comment. acer

Hi Jacques, Sure, having pure symbols (names, which presumably evaluate to just themselves and nothing else) with attributes is one of the ways that I thought that abstract linear algebra might go. But I also wondered whether, at some point, it would be nice to be able to convert an abstract LA expression into a computational, concrete LA thing which evaluates explicitly. One way to get that effect might be to have the usual Matrix/Vector rtables get attributes on them, and have an abstract LA environment in which those objects are treated as evaln. But in such a case, why the need for attributes, when such rtables could be queried about size, indexing-function? Is it important for memory, that the rtables needn't actually exist concretely, for a good abstract LA project? The new Matrix/Vector objects don't have last-name-eval like matrix/vector do, but would there still be a need to convert abstract LA expressions to comething concrete, in a way akin to what evalm does for arrays? Or is that a misdirection? acer

S := Sum(((-1)^n)/ln(n),n=2..infinity); evalf(S); acer

S := Sum(((-1)^n)/ln(n),n=2..infinity); evalf(S); acer