564 Reputation

6 Badges

12 years, 29 days

MaplePrimes Activity

These are answers submitted by ndattani

Thank you very much both Pagan and Roman_Pearce,

Those answers were both very helpful and that was the exact type of response I was hoping for.


I wasn't too upset that the numbers were different in the last 3 digits as those were way beyond my required precision ... I just wanted to learn more about how Maple works internally, and that explanation was very helpful.


Thank you very much once again,



That's what I was doing, but I thought there might be a way without haivn to predefine the arrays.

Thanks anyway though!

That is absolutely perfect!

Thank you so much both Pagan and Robert Israel !

What a great start to the day =)


If that's not possible, is there at least a way that I could access that grid of numbers in a convenient format ??

When I do:


I get f(x) at all values of x from 0 to 2 with stepsize 0.5, but it's in a very strange format that's not amenable to transfering to matlab.

I still haven't figured out how to do this for f(x-y), but if I could I would prefer if the output was just in the form of a list of numbers, rather than with these inconvenient brackets all over the place!







Neat! Thanks so much!

Okay, one way I realized to do this is to highlight an entire line and drag+drop it in a different location to leave empty lines between two lines. But this can be very inefficient in some situations, so I'm wondering if there's something easy from the keyboard like CTRL+J, CTRL+K and SHIFT-ENTER are.


I have a problem with both of those methods.


1. Shift-enter surely adds a line on top of the line in question, but it's part of the same execution group. So if I press enter to evaluate either one of the two resultant lines, BOTH lines get evaluated even if it's important that only one does.

2. Even after making the prompt=""  , lines that are created this way are still treated differently by maple than normal lines. You can tell the difference because when you make a line by using CTRL+J or CTRL+K , and have the prompt="" , you get a black square left bracket on the left of your line, while lines that are not created this way do not have anything at the beginning of the line.  This a problem in evaluting lines, for example:

If I have 3 lines in a row that I want to evaluate, and the middle one has the square left bracket at the beginning (was created by CTRL+J) and the other two don't , and I press "ENTER" three times..  It will only evaluate the first and second ones.  This middle one is jumped over because of the bracket at the beginning.



Is there a way to add new lines without the above two problems ??

I'd be very surprised if not.



Thank you Joe Riel!

That was exactly what I wanted to do! And yes, I needed to convert them to rationals first.

Thanks Alex,

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but Joe's method is working for me (the exponential was just a simple example for what I really wanted to do).


Thanks to both of you =)


Thank you Jakubi and Alex Smith!

I tried the [animate] method, which Alex suggested, but it didn't seem to do anything useful. I probably need to load a package of some sort ?

The Explore command worked well, except it's strange that it takes me to a brand new page, where there's a "Maple Explorer" banner at the top! Mathematica let's you explore functions this way just like plots in a regular worksheet.

Hopefully Maple's GUI will evolve to this stage soon!


Wow, that's great!

THanks so much all three of you!

Thank you eveyrone for all the help,

especially Doug and Alec,

I sitll got the error: "Error, (in sprintf) number expected for floating point format" even after doing exactly what Doug did but with map(f,S) instead of f~S.

Maybe it's because my 'funciton of R' wasn't actually defined as a function but was instead generated by evaluating the eigenvalues of a matrix that happened to have a dependence on the symbol R.


Either way, I just remembered that for similar reasons I had actually done some of these calculations on MATLAB as well, so it will probably be easier for me to just generate the arrays in the MATLAB-domain where the generation of arrays like these are trivial.

I'm still surprised at how tortuous the procedure is in Maple, for something that's so simple in other programs!

But thanks once again everyone for all of the help.

Thank you Dr. Meade,

Does that only work on Maple 13 ??

This did not actually work for me (on Maple 12),

I tried this simple example:

A := R+2:

S := [seq(R,R=1..2,0.1)]:


And got, "Error, (in Vector) dimension parameter is required for this form of initializer" Then I tried: Vector(A~(S),1): Witch works, but then:


gives the error "Error, (in sprintf) number expected for floating point format"

I also tried this by defining A in the following way:

A:=R->R+2 and got the same error.



Thank you Georgios and Alec,

Those are both neat tricks,

I'm having trouble using Alec's method on my own function though (I use the exponential in my example but in my actual problem I have my own function which was defined in terms of the variable R),

and I also need to be able to make my mesh-size non-integral [I would like to be able to list the evaluations from R=1 to R=2 in increments of 0.1, for example]

Is that possible at all ??




Thanks to all of you for your detailed responses.

I really appreciate all of your comments.


Yes, I was using Maple 12, so maybe I should upgrade to maple 13.

I personally think that it was just a bug in maple's parsing, because I copied and pasted "RET" , yet still it parsed one way the first time and another way the second time.

But until all those problems are fixed (I suspect maple 13 still has many problems and it will take a _long_ time before the GUI's integrity becomes comparable to MATLAB or Mathematica), I will try the 1D input instead.


Thanks again.




Thanks a lot Alec!

This is information is all very useful.

Sorry I meant 'encyption' not 'decryption' .. but I see your point (for both cases).

I saw on the wikipedia page for RSA that it said that when using shorter addition change in the public key exponent, the encryption becomes more efficient.

I'm not too familiar with this stuff so I wasn't sure.

1 2 3 Page 1 of 3