@salim-barzani

Quoting @mmcdara:

"This is for the simple reason that I can neither figure out what you're trying to achieve, nor be able to find a relationship between what you say in this reply and the code you provide."

"I hope you can find someone smarter than [us - me and @mmcdara ] - to help you.
Good luck"

@salim-barzani Please explain exactly in your worksheet sys.mw where eq1 comes from. I suggest you highlight the terms in red (in P?, E3?, somewhere else?) to show where they are. You presumably cut and pasted them from somewhere so you can highlight that place.

@salim-barzani So you don't want alpha_i and beta_i in the equation for U? What two terms are you talking about?

@salim-barzani So you want to generate these equations eq0..eq10? This can be done with the collect(...,'distributed'); coeffs(.., 'monomials'); and then if you put the monomials in a table you can pick out the monomials you want. This code you have seen before. I don't see what this has to do with factoring.

factor what? You mean all of eq0 to eq10? so map(factor, {eq0,...,eq10}); But this won't matter to solve.

@salim-barzani As you know, for consistency I always write ode's and equation to solve without the =0.

Maple itself doesn't have anything; at least ?fuzzy does not return anything. But the application center has four applications to do with fuzzy sets or fuzzy controllers; don't know if this includes fuzzy derivatives.

@salim-barzani Changed signs in ode to match trigh solution. The convert to exp shows Eq 3 can't be right, so I hacked it.

Download T1.mw

@salim-barzani I went through the code making a few changes but with the same result. I didn't check every equation with the paper, but since the final odetest succeeds, it seems everything is working. So I have no idea what you are actually asking, and am not going to spend more time unless you give a very specific question about a particular equation.

Dr.D-feedback2.mw

@salim-barzani I really don't understand what you are asking, but this is my best guess

Dr.D.mw

@salim-barzani I'm don't understand what you are trying to do. See attached for the immediate solution to the error.

A.mw

@salim-barzani You seem to have gone back to using all monomials as before. The paper just says "after arduous calculations". So I don't know what to do here.

@Christopher2222 Yes, the double underscore is just for appearance; I guess you could say "one off". I don't think there is a convention for packages to use one or the other scheme.

@salim-barzani You can convert the answer to explicit forms using allvalues even if solve does not do it.

At first I thought it was a challenge to factor the two numbers given, but the first ends in a 5, so that is definitely too easy. I reread it and I still do not know what exactly you are asking. Would you please clarify.