@acer 

Thanks!  Using the title does it.

Andy

Yeah, I didn't appreciate how hard it is to get a clean "simplify.  Glad I'm not writing the code.

I haven't submitted a report yet.  I'd like to step through Preben's analysis so I understand where the problem comes in.  (Have a deadline to meet first, though.)  From Alejandro's post I thought this might be a known bug, but re-reading maybe he's just checking old versions he has loaded?  Our license won't let us go back more than 2 versions.   Anyway, I'll look into it a little more to see if I can issue a fairly clean report, and then send it in.  Thanks for the prompt.

Yeah, I didn't appreciate how hard it is to get a clean "simplify.  Glad I'm not writing the code.

I haven't submitted a report yet.  I'd like to step through Preben's analysis so I understand where the problem comes in.  (Have a deadline to meet first, though.)  From Alejandro's post I thought this might be a known bug, but re-reading maybe he's just checking old versions he has loaded?  Our license won't let us go back more than 2 versions.   Anyway, I'll look into it a little more to see if I can issue a fairly clean report, and then send it in.  Thanks for the prompt.

You've got a couple of tools in there for debugging that I didn't think to look for.  That will come in handy.  Thanks very much.  (And it's reassuring to think that at least I understood how things were supposed to work.)

You've got a couple of tools in there for debugging that I didn't think to look for.  That will come in handy.  Thanks very much.  (And it's reassuring to think that at least I understood how things were supposed to work.)

I never would have thought of that.  I figured I should tell Maple that the argument of the radical was positive before simplifying.  Thanks, this is great!

I never would have thought of that.  I figured I should tell Maple that the argument of the radical was positive before simplifying.  Thanks, this is great!