26362 Reputation

29 Badges

16 years, 319 days

Social Networks and Content at

MaplePrimes Activity

These are replies submitted by acer

@johnksellers As mentioned in the Question body, the problematic situation occurs when 1D plaintext is pasted into a 2D Input area. In contrast, when I type theta__xy into a 2D Input area then it automagically typesets.

So, where are these involved 1D plaintext expressions coming from, that you are pasting into 2D Input areas? (I'm trying to figure out whether it makes sense to consider any kind of batch process, but that doesn't make sense for all scenarios.)

By the way, the Escape mechanism in 2D Input mode activates 2D command-completion. It's a combination of Java GUI and Library-side mechanisms, so I don't think that you'd be able to locate and adjust it.

But command-completion is very useful in other 2D input situations, and I thought I might mention that here. Suppose one wants to enter a typeset 2D definite integral. In 2D Input mode simply type in the letters Int (or int) and then press the Escape key. The command-completion popup should appear, containing several alternatives including templates for both definite and indefinite integrals, etc. I find it similarly useful for entering units (I type Unit and then Escape, and then get a generic unit braced-input template). And so on.

@manju If you have followup queries about making that package work then put it here, not as a separate Question.

I have deleted a duplicate of this topic, in which you address the same idea but with multithreading.

Don't post duplicates of question threads. (This was mentioned to you earlier.)

What do you mean by "export"?

Are you exporting with a command, or copy&pasting, or simply saving output, or what? Please be explicit.

@nm You apply your objections inconsistently. Now you've stated that you will accept having big_car be wholly separate from car_class, which of course makes its exports accessible throughout. But before you objected just to big_car's exports being accessible by explicit fully qualified reference from car_class objects. Having big_car be a separate module now makes its exports more accessible than what you objected to earlier.

And if I give you a variant that attains the originally described conditions (of being local to car_class objects as well as its exports not being directly accessibly from without) then you complain on the grounds that it's too much editing. This given request that a particular shorter form ought to work because otherwise there'd be too much to rewrite does not make sense to me.

[edited] I pointed out that you could also change the big_car_name to be declared static(string) in the code in my Answer, if that's what you wanted (it wasn't clear to me from the original description).

I notice that you also didn't address my query about what you meant by putting the big_car module source in its own .mpl file (ie. whether that just meant to $include it, or what). And you didn't address my query about the apparently typo'd or unclear example.

@Carl Love It seems to me that the OP wants some multiply-composed Nabla call to do nothing and display inertly until such time as he applies value.

It looks to me as if he wishes to have some (early) part of a derivation look concise, while executed with Physics[Vectors] loaded.

I don't see how your suggestion to merely utilize %f alongside active Nabla would attain such effects. As far as I can tell so far, your answer does not address the actual request.

Perhaps I too am misunderstanding your suggestion.

Please do not submit duplicates of your difficutlies in getting this package to work in more recent Maple versions.

(I have deleted two duplicates.)

@vs140580 You don't have to program it yourself by hand, for combinations or permutations. The combinat and Iterator packages already provide commands that do this (without constructing or storing the complete set at once). You seem to have trouble understanding that point.

@vs140580 I believe that we already (before) understood your point: You don't want Maple to compute all the permutations at once, because there would be too many to store at once in memory.

You have at least three choices in how to generate (iterate over) the permutations one at a time: write your own procedure, use the combinat:-nextperm command, or use the Iterator package appropriately.

In each of those three scenarios the complete set of permutations will not be constructed at any one time. The permutations get constructed/iterated-over, individually and one at a time. Your code could then manipulate or test each permutation, individually and one at a time.

Your request is quite common. That's why there are two ways already built into Maple for doing it.

@ogunmiloro Only you can state what are reasonable ranges for the parameters.

If you want the "best" parameter values then you probably would be better off doing global optimization rather than using the local optimization that Optimization:-Minimize offers here. You don't just want a relative minimum. The DirectSearch (version 2) package may be a decent choice, available from the Application Center for your Maple 18 I believe.

Also, global optimization becomes very time consuiming and expensive as the number of parameters grows. You have many parameters.

I hope that you understand that you (not us) are in best the position to state sensibly what might be reasonable ranges for the parameters.

Also, you still need to state what you want to happen if some parameter values cause the numeric solution to encouter an appararent singularity. You are in the position to judge that, not us. Do you want those parameter values to be accepted as possible candidates, or rejected outright? I'm guessing that you might want them rejected, but you have to judge.

@ogunmiloro You have not followed several of my suggestions, requests, and comments.

You did not change the C[C] (or C__C) used in the select call, to instead refer to one of the dependent variables of the DE system. And so, as I described would happen, you now get an error because there is no match and you are passing NULL to rhs. As I asked belore: which dependent variable of the DE system are you trying to access in computing the objective?

Also, you will need to accomodate the situation that the numeric solution encounters a singularity. How should the objective function behave in that case?

Also, you should probably supply ranges for the parameters in the Minimize call.

I have a version which computes a result from Minimize. But I made up the fixes for the issues I described. You need to figure out how you need these aspects to be adjusted, or else the results would be meaningless.

It might help if you uploaded and attach your document, so that we could see the original expression if it is significantly different (and don't have to type in either). It would also let us determine which version you're using.

You called simplify(..., symbolic) on something. Does that mean that you don't care about the branch cuts, or are not aware of the possible ramifications of doing so?

Do you have any objection to using a command or calling sequence which is not offered directly by the context-panel?

On Windows the 64bit Maple version comes bundled with the LLVM compiler, and usually the Compiler:-Compile command works "out of the box". In other words, you usually don't have to run the Compiler:-Setup command.

Is there a particular reason why you wanted to switch the external compiler from LLVM to something else like the Microsoft compiler?

Did you have a problem running Compiler:-Compiler with the default external LLVM compiler? (Perhaps you mistakenly thought that you had to run Setup?) Or do you need to use the inmem=false option? Or some other reason?

note: I changed your Post into a Question.

@Carl Love I read that part and had the same question, and I was planning to submit a bug report.

@Carl Love The instructions to find the maximum and saddle-point are weird. It suggests rotating the 3D plot, presumably so that the x- and y-values could be approximately read off of the axis tickmarks.

It seems strange to me that students might be studying extrema and saddle-points and not be looking at computing the stationary points' approximations.

First 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Last Page 70 of 489