18168 Reputation

29 Badges

14 years, 237 days

Social Networks and Content at

MaplePrimes Activity

These are replies submitted by acer

As far as I can see this behavior goes back to Maple 6 (when the operator form of `or` was introduced?)

I suppose that it is either an oversight in the kernel builtin, or just maybe based on some corner case functionality.

But I have not thought of a useful and non-esoteric example that would rely upon it. Perhaps, something with structured types (though why not use `Or` now)? As I believe Carl alluded, it doesn't make a difference under evalb.

@danielpf The add command was introduced in Maple V Release 4 (1996).  See ?updatesR4,language


@Carl Love I have not had much overall joy when trying to export "array plots", whether by right-click or programmatically.

In the case of programmatic export the plot driver seems shaky (it can sometimes try and fake things by forming a single 2-D plot and adjusting the axes, but gridlines get lost and custom tickmarks act weirdly.)

It would be nice to discover whether the OP's example works out for him.

Sorry if I did not make my query clear. I'm interested in the comparative performance of this algorithm/method, implemented in Maple with various approaches to code optimzation, and in Matlab.


Please give input examples along with corresponding expected/acceptable output and runtime in Matlab.

Preferably there would be at least one example that takes more than 2 seconds to run.


@Kitonum I guessed that he was asking the general question about how to call add with any conditional, and the the mod example was just for illustration purposes.

@JLange In the attachment below, GetIds is intended as a command to find the identies of embedded components of the given kind in the current worksheet.

(An obvious improvement would be to allow multiple kinds to be queried at once, for efficiency.)


# GetIds is intended as a mechanism to find the identies of all the
# embedded components of the given kind in the current worksheet.

  local ModuleApply,T,st;
  ModuleApply:=proc(nm::string, $)
    local xmlstr,xml,lowernm;
    if not assigned(T[lowernm]) then
      error "expecting a string (of mixed case) in %1, but received \"%2\"",
            [indices(T,':-nolist')], nm;
    end if;
    if not st>0 then error "could not find start of worksheet"; end if;
  end proc;
end module:



{"CodeEditRegion0", "CodeEditRegion1"}


{"CodeEditRegion0", "CodeEditRegion1"}


{"Button0", "Button1", "Button2"}
















GetIds("foobar"); # test

Error, (in ModuleApply) expecting a string (of mixed case) in ["shortcut", "dial", "mathcontainer", "meter", "togglebutton", "datatable", "speaker", "codeeditor", "volumegauge", "rotarygauge", "checkbox", "radiobutton", "plot", "microphone", "button", "combobox", "label"], but received "foobar"

:-`_XML_EC-CodeEditor`:=43: # test`

{"CodeEditRegion0", "CodeEditRegion1"}




@vv While I don't see any nice way to get Maple to solve even the reduced 2-dimensional problem (once x3 is eliminated), for fun here are Yet More Ways to get some plots out of Maple.

Here's a quick way, using the reduced system (without floor) cited as coming from Mma. I transform a 2-d plot using the isolated formula for x3, since implicitplot3d won't find any data on right on the plane.

# using the cited solution from Mma
eqs:=(155/2 < x1 and x1 < 78 and 744/7-4*x1*(1/7) < x2 and x2 < 62 or
 72 <= x1 and x1 <= 73 and 102-4*x1*(1/7) < x2 and x2 < 62 or 73 < x1 and x1 <= 147/2 and
 102-4*x1*(1/7) < x2 and x2 <= 726/7-4*x1*(1/7) or 147/2 < x1 and x1 < 74 and 60 <= x2 and
 x2 <= 726/7-4*x1*(1/7) or 74 <= x1 and x1 < 75 and 726/7-4*x1*(1/7) < x2 and x2 < 62 or 
 153/2 < x1 and x1 < 78 and 726/7-4*x1*(1/7) < x2 and x2 < 60 or x1 = 72 and 58 <= x2 and
 x2 < 60 or 72 < x1 and x1 < 74 and 58 <= x2 and x2 <= 708/7-4*x1*(1/7) or 75 <= x1 and 
 x1 < 76 and 102-4*x1*(1/7) < x2 and x2 < 60 or x1 = 74 and 442/7 < x2 and x2 < 64 or
 74 < x1 and x1 < 75 and 738/7-4*x1*(1/7) < x2 and x2 <= 744/7-4*x1*(1/7) or 74 <= x1 and
 x1 < 75 and 708/7-4*x1*(1/7) < x2 and x2 <= 102-4*x1*(1/7) or 151/2 < x1 and x1 < 76 and
 708/7-4*x1*(1/7) < x2 and x2 < 58 or 157/2 < x1 and x1 < 80 and 762/7-4*x1*(1/7) < x2 and
 x2 < 64 or 68 <= x1 and x1 < 137/2 and 56 <= x2 and x2 <= 666/7-4*x1*(1/7) or x1 = 137/2 and
 x2 = 56 or x1 = 70 and 56 < x2 and x2 < 58 or 70 < x1 and x1 <= 71 and 56 <= x2 and x2 < 58 or
 71 < x1 and x1 < 72 and 56 <= x2 and x2 <= 690/7-4*x1*(1/7) or 70 <= x1 and x1 <= 281/4 and
 54 <= x2 and x2 < 55 or 281/4 < x1 and x1 < 72 and 54 <= x2 and x2 <= 666/7-4*x1*(1/7)):

P2d:=plots:-inequal(eqs, x1=0..100, x2=0..100, nolines,



Working with the original system involving floor, a 2-d implicit plot can be produced using the implicitplot command. It can find the complementary set more robustly (if the ranges and grid size vary) but the resolution seems poor unless it is refined so much that it takes a while to compute. Computing the set as below is quick, but seems prone to miss portions unless the ranges/grid are "just right".

foo:={4*x1+7*x2+6*x3 = 186,
      floor((1/2)*x1)+floor((1/5)*x2)+floor((1/3)*x3) = 18, 
      floor((1/5)*x1)+floor((1/2)*x2)+floor((1/4)*x3) = 21}:

px3:=solve(4*x1+7*x2+6*x3 = 186, {x3}):

# seems tricky to ensure that all the region is found
P2d:=plots:-implicitplot(unapply((`or`(op(map(u->u>0 or u<0,new)))),[x1,x2]),


It's a shame that solve knows little about floor/ceil/frac.

Yes. And I've previously asked you, via both Replies and private message, to stop posting duplicates of that question.

Youve already asked the same question, more than once. People have responded with code and answers.

If you dont find the answers adequate then provide more detail in followup comments.

Providing a link to a paper, an image, and code without proper explanation isn't very helpful.

Just because nobody can figure out what exactly you want doesn't justify your spamming this forum repeatedly with duplicate Questions.

@tomleslie And now you have code that, IMO, is not significantly simpler than variants already posted by both Carl and me. There is no evalindets or subsindets, but the constants involve more typing.

Also, while the float values of the constants resolve reasonably in this example, in general there may be benefit to delaying the evalf call until later. Hence my 2nd variant in response to Carl.

You did ask what was wrong with it. So I gave my opinion.

Just because some aspects are subtle doesn't mean they are necessarily overkill.

@tomleslie One thing I consider inferior about it is that Maple will call evalf and simplify each and every time your procedure En will get used.

A central part of my and Carl's commentary is about how the units can be simplied, just once, in advance of even creating the procedure.

But it's worthwhile that you mention calling Constant(...,units), if only for completeness. 



Who deleted the original full question and attachment? That is so very unhelpful and rude.

Perhaps the GUI's context-menu driven Matrix/Array/rtable browser cannot handle 500000 columns of data.

You have floating-point 2-dimensional data, yes? In a float[8] rtable, I hope.

How about using the ImageTools package to scale that down to a manageable pixel-width (number of columns).

@Carl Love I find using the ScientificConstants package is awkward at best, for anything other than the most simplistic usage of immediately calling GetValue and GetConstant on all the Constant calls separately, at the start, and assigning the results to some names for use in the worksheet.

But if one wants to leave the Constant calls in, while doing further symbolic manipulation which could result in simplifications, etc, I find it hard going. I don't understand why there isn't any single command that can replace a Constant call by its numeric value (or its derived formula) multiplied by its units. I don't think any new user is going to enjoy being shown something like,

   evalindets(expr, specfunc(Constant), GetValue*GetUnit)

or even this (whose result works nicer with evalf, though really it doubles up the units concept in context),

   evalindets(expr, specfunc(Constant), u->u*GetUnit(u))

Having to use evalindets (or subsindets) at all seems like a tough introduction. Why couldn't GetValue (or GetValue alongside GetUnit) map across an expression or formula containing several Constant calls?

@samen I'm not really sure what you're trying to do.

My guess is that you have some exact formula, and that you'd like to plot the difference between that and the Matrix produced by calling your p procedure at a given value.

If that's right, then one way is to generate a Matrix where the values of the Matrx at indices (i,j) represent the value of the exact formula. I'm assuming that your original values for a and b are supposed to be the end-points of the range for t the variable in the exact formula. (You haven't given an indication of what the second dimension in the plot is supposed to represent. I treat it as a dummy.)

It would be really helpful if, in future, you could explain in much more detail what you're trying to do. It may be obvious to you, but it isn't to me.

First 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Last Page 68 of 413