In this youtube video Maple V: The Future of Mathematics it shows image of the Maple V software box. At about 0.39 seconds as the following

It has Newton's pic on it. Note that I am asking about the image of the software box. Not a book about Maple V. There are number of images of the above during the video. It is clear that is the software box that Maple V came in.

But On London science museum web page it shows Maple V image as something completely different.

I am asking about Maple  V and  Not Maple V release 5.0 which came many years after it. Maple V was released on February 8, 1990.

How come these 2 images are not the same? Which is the correct one? Is it possible the second one is for Maple V release 5.0 and not Maple V?  But the web page clearly says  "Maple V 5.0 " which I read as Maple version 5 where the "V" is shorthand for version.

But may be now I think it may be means  "Maple V release 5.0"?  Could someone confirm if the second image is meant to be Maple V release 5.0 and not Maple V?

The old version numbers for maple were very confusing.

Do not know if this known or reported or not. Just in case. Here is an example where odetest gives internal error when adding integer to assuming. 

Maple 2025.2. Firewall will not let me upload now. Here is code

sol:=y(x) = -4/9*I*(x+1)^(1/4)*(x-1)^(1/4)*2^(1/2)*x^2+4/9*(x+1)^(1/4)*(x-1)^(1/4)*2^(1/2)*x^2+4/9*I*(x+1)^(1/4)*(x-1)^(1/4)*2^(1/2)+1/9*x^4-4/9*(x+1)^(1/4)*(x-1)^(1/4)*2^(1/2)-16/9*I*(x+1)^(1/2)*(x-1)^(1/2)-2/9*x^2+1/9;
ode:=(-x^2+1)*diff(y(x),x)+x*y(x) = x*(-x^2+1)*y(x)^(1/2);
IC:=y(0) = 1;

odetest(sol,[ode,IC]) assuming integer,positive;

Screen shot

There used to be specific web pages, that lists specific update to Maple DE solver.

Only ones I can find are from version 8 to 16. Here are the links below. They start by saying this 

https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/Maple/view.aspx?path=updates/Maple8/de

https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/Maple/view.aspx?path=updates/Maple9/de

https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/Maple/view.aspx?path=updates/Maple10/de

https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/Maple/view.aspx?path=updates/Maple11/de

https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/Maple/view.aspx?path=updates/Maple12/de

https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/Maple/view.aspx?path=updates/Maple13/de

https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/Maple/view.aspx?path=updates/Maple14/de

https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/Maple/view.aspx?path=updates/Maple15/de

https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/Maple/view.aspx?path=updates/Maple16/de

But these do not works for anything after Maple 16 and before 8. i.e. changing the number in the link to 17 or 18 and so on, gives no page found error.

All my search leads to no result.

Are such help pages still present for updates to DE solvers in Maple for versions after Maple 16? WHat link to use to access them?

When I look at web pages under "what is new" it also does not have specific section just for DE solver like those pages had. For example   https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/maple/view.aspx?path=updates%2Fv2025  does not have specific section just for DE solvers.

 i wait 30 minute to  see the result of this function it will zero or not but is not give me outcome, is so importan for me which to see this function is my answer, how i can see the result, can  anyone give me the way 

T-pde.mw

Hi again all,

prime numbers are fun for me.

see

pairs_of_prime_numbers_procedure_with_union_and_isprime.pdf

sorry, could not find the .mw file,

but the code is small, and easy to copy

this is fun for me, here in Keizer OR, USA

Party on, everyone

Best regards,

Matt

https://mattanderson.fun/

I have the following data

Dados:=[-9.43, -4.42, -4.04, -2.88, -1.90, -1.81, -1.20, -1.16, -1.03, -.14, 1.27, 1.72, 1.97, 1.98, 2.24, 3.24, 3.64, 3.8, 5.1, 5.52]

and using command

Histogram(Dados, binbounds = [-10, -7, -4, -1, 2, 5, 8], frequencyscale = absolute)

I can create a frequency histogram for the classes [-10,-7[, [-7,-4[, [-4,-1[, [-1,2[, [2,5[, [5,8[. However, how I can create a cumulative histogram with corresponding polygon employing this same information? With thanks.

The system below obviously has the unique solution  t=3*Pi/2 , but Maple doesn't return any solution. I wonder if this bug persists in recent versions of Maple?

solve({cos(t)=0,sin(t)=-1,t>=0,t<=2*Pi}, t);

   #  NULL

I wanted to trick odetest and see what it does. I gave it solution to ode with IC. The solution was in form of implicit solution.

odetest verified it.

Then I solved for y(x) from the implicit solution and passed each now explicit solution to odetest, now it does not verify either one. (two explicit solutions resulted)

I would have thought that odetest to not verify the implicit solution as well. Is this a bug or an expected behavior when using implicit?

Does this mean, to be safe, one should try to solve for y(x) explicitly before using odetest? But sometimes this can be expensive or not possible nor practical to do as implicit solution can be complicated to solve for y(x).

Maple 2025.2 on windows 10.

Firewall now suddently will not let me upload a worksheet again for some reason. Firewall did not have a problem yesterday, but today it complained.

So here code and screen shot

restart;
ode:=2*y(x) + 2*x*y(x)^2 + (2*x + 2*x^2*y(x))*diff(y(x), x) = 0;
IC:=y(0) = 1;
maple_sol:=dsolve([ode,IC]);
#                         maple_sol := ()

my_sol_1:=x*y(x)*(2+y(x)*x)=0;
odetest(my_sol_1,[ode,IC])

#                             [0, 0]

PDEtools:-Solve(my_sol_1,y(x));
map(X->odetest(X,[ode,IC]),[%])

#   [[0, 1], [0, undefined]]

So I want to create gamma matrices like this one:

and the four Pauli matrices. So how can I create this one if I have defined the identity matrix (2X2) and the zero matrix(2X2).

 I have tried this:

with(LinearAlgebra);
ga_zero := matrix(4, 4, [ZeroMatrix(2), IdentityMatrix(2), -IdentityMatrix(2), ZeroMatrix(2)]);

Which, of course, did not work. I knew it from the start. But I am wondering how to do it.

Thank you in advance for your help

Mario

I downloaded the Maple free trial but could not find the Migration Assistant. What to do?

In my Maple program, the voltage output of the system is computed as a time-domain response under different time intervals. The response curve has already been successfully obtained and plotted.

However, I would like to further extract and plot the envelope of this response. I initially attempted to determine the envelope by identifying the extrema of the signal, i.e., by solving the condition that the time derivative of the response equals zero. Unfortunately, this approach consistently leads to error messages, and I am not sure whether the issue is related to symbolic differentiation, numerical noise, or the implementation itself.

Could anyone please advise on:

1. The correct way to extract an envelope curve from a time-domain signal in Maple?

2. Whether there are alternative or more robust methods (e.g., based on numerical post-processing, signal processing techniques, or built-in Maple tools) to obtain the envelope, especially for numerically computed responses?

Any suggestions or example commands would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance for your help.
numsolve-1229.mw

Hi Maplesoft Support / Community,

I've encountered a critical and bizarre bug involving Bits:-And correctness on large integers (~30 digits) derived from repeated integerdivq2exp operations.

• Maple 2023 (Linux x86_64)
• Maple 2025 (Linux x86_64)
• Maple 2025 (Windows x86_64)

The correctness of Bits:-And depends on the order of execution. 

(See attached common.mpl, bug_test2.mpl, bug_test3.mpl logic).

Case "Fail" (bug_test2.mpl):

1. Run operation (loops `integerdivq2exp`).
2. Print result num1 (semicolon).
3. Define num1_clean (hardcoded same value).
4. Bits:-And(num1) -> INCORRECT.
5. Bits:-And(num1_clean) -> INCORRECT.

Case "Pass" (bug_test3.mpl):

1. Define num1_clean.
2. Run operation (loops integerdivq2exp).
3. Bits:-And(num1) -> CORRECT.
4. Bits:-And(num1_clean) -> CORRECT.

The same behaviour can be observed in Worksheet mode using read.  (See worksheet_driver.mw)

But the result cannot be reproduced if not using read. (See worksheet_version.mw and worksheet_version2.mw)

Code below:

N := 2100:
n := 1000:
num := rand(0 .. 2^N)():
operation := proc(num, n)
    local q, k;
    q := num;
    for k from 1 to 2 do
        q := integerdivq2exp(q, n); 
    end do;
    q;
end proc:

read "common.mpl";

num1 := operation(num, n);
num1_clean := 1083029963437854242395921050992;

num1_clean_And_result := Bits:-And(num1_clean, integermul2exp(1, n) - 1);
num1_And_result := Bits:-And(num1, integermul2exp(1, n) - 1);

##################################

expected_result := irem(num1_clean, integermul2exp(1, n));

if num1 <> num1_clean then
    error "num1 does not match num1_clean";
end if;
print("num1 matches num1_clean");

if num1_And_result <> num1_clean_And_result then
    error "num1_And_result does not match num1_clean_And_result";
end if;
print("num1_And_result matches num1_clean_And_result");

if num1_And_result <> expected_result then
    error "num1_And_result does not match expected_result";
end if;
print("num1_And_result matches expected_result");

read "common.mpl";

num1_clean := 1083029963437854242395921050992:
num1 := operation(num, n):

num1_clean_And_result := Bits:-And(num1_clean, integermul2exp(1, n) - 1):
num1_And_result := Bits:-And(num1, integermul2exp(1, n) - 1);

##################################

expected_result := irem(num1_clean, integermul2exp(1, n));

if num1 <> num1_clean then
    error "num1 does not match num1_clean";
end if;
print("num1 matches num1_clean");

if num1_And_result <> num1_clean_And_result then
    error "num1_And_result does not match num1_clean_And_result";
end if;
print("num1_And_result matches num1_clean_And_result");

if num1_And_result <> expected_result then
    error "num1_And_result does not match expected_result";
end if;
print("num1_And_result matches expected_result");

In the attached file, I want to transform (1) into (3) and back again (3) into (1). Attempts using CompleteSquare and expand in combination with other commands have failed. I would appreciate any advice.

dio1.mw

I am looking for a command that extracts sqrt(2) from

sqrt(4 + (-2*x - 2)*y)

The expression above is a subexpression of a larger expression generated by Maple (an integral).
In this situation manual workarounds are impractical and errorprone.

Ideally Maple should return

sqrt(2)*sqrt(2 - (x + 1)*y)

I tried simplify, factor, collect and so on...

In case that there is nothing (which I doubt):
Why is Maple not having simple commands that do extraction (and absortion/inclusion) of factors?

(extract and absorb are names not used so far that would be easy to remember.)  

Update - example of an expression:

expr := Int(sqrt(-2*alpha^2*x - 2*alpha^2 + 4)/(sqrt(-alpha^2 + 1)*(-alpha^2*x - alpha^2 + 2)), alpha = 0 .. z) = EllipticF(z, sqrt(2*x + 2)/2)

I noticed today only 2 cases where calling simplify, with no options, made things worst.

Just trying to understand why.

Here is one example. Solved an ode. when calling odetest on this solution, it gives zero. But if the solution is simplified first, then odetest no longer gives zero. And it is actually hard to find a trick to make it become zero so far.

But the question is: Is this to be expected sometimes? I use simplify sporadically, but like to get smaller  expression at one point. But now I am not sure if I should even do that.

Could this be a problem in simplify itself somehow?

Here is an example.

Download why_simplify_changes_things_at_dec_27_2025.mw

Notice how much simpler the solution becomes after calling simplify. I'd like to use that. But for some reason, odetest now fails to verify the simpler version. Which tells me simplify did something which made the solution not valid.

Here is second example, where calling simplify in betwen did not give zero as expected.

Download why_simplify_changes_things_at_dec_27_2025_V2.mw

Just trying to understand why this happens and if this is something that could happen sometimes? May be one should avoid calling simplify in middle of computation and let the user decide if they want to simplify the final result or not?