plots:-polarplot([r, Pi/6, r=0..2]);

The upper limit for r is arbitrary; I chose 2 for no particular reason. Note that Pi is with a capital P.

This technique is akin to how one would plot a vertical line in rectangular (Cartesian) coordinates:

plot([3, y, y= -2..2]);

I'm not sure if command polarplot is available in Maple 13. If it isn't, I'll come up with something else for you.

Perhaps they meant semicolons, which are used to separate rows:

< 6,8 ; -3,9 ; 4,14 >;

But that's row-major order.

By the way, using the angle-bracket operators uses significantly less processor time than using Matrix or Vector, so I'd recommend using them (or the built-in rtable) in programs whenever possible. Often, it is useful or necessary to use the prefix forms `<,>` and `<|>`. (There is no `<;>`.) For example, to convert a row-major listlist LL into a Matrix, you could do

<`<|>`~(LL)[]>;

But that example is just to illustrate the power of the prefix notation, because instead I'd probably use

rtable(LL, subtype= Matrix);

If your answer to the first question in my Reply above is yes, then this routine will do it:

SeparateLastTerms:= E->
     evalindets(
          E, specfunc(anything,{Sum,sum}),
          S-> eval(op(1,S), op([2,1],S)= op([2,2,2],S)) + subsop([2,2,2]= op([2,2,2],S) - 1, S)
     )
;

Example of use:

E:= Sum(A[k], k= 2..n+1) + sum(f(j), j= 3..m):
SeparateLastTerms(E);

Change the line

evalm(Matrix(n,n,symbol=C))

to

Matrix(n,n, (i,j)-> C[i,j])

The symbol=C option does not work when C has already been assigned values.

There is no need---ever---to use evalm with capital-M Matrices, which are the only type of Matrices that you should be using. Likewise, there is no need for with(linalg).

You wrote:

I understand in Maple one uses the back quote key (or rather the apostrophe, 0X27) to prevent one time evaluation of expression.

The apostrophe is not the same as the back quote! The aposthrope is ASCII character 39 (or 0X27 as you say); the back quote is `, ASCII character 96 (or 0X60). It is important in Maple not to mix these up! They each have very specific uses. The aposthrophe delays evaluation, and the back quote turns arbitrary groups of characters into names.

This might indicate that the front end parser did this simplification before the main evaluator got hold of it, so it was too late?

Yes, that is essentially correct. We refer to it as "automatic simplification." Yes, these cannot be delayed with quotes.

Either way, how would one make Maple return 16/4 when the input is '16/4'?

In Maple 18, use the InertForm package:

InertForm:-Display(InertForm:-Parse("16/4"));

or

InertForm:-Display(`%/`(16,4));

(Note the use of back quotes in the last command.)

You need to choose a branch of the absolute value. Each branch gives a different solution. When there are multiple solutions possible for the highest derivative, numeric dsolve will not choose one of them for you. So, solve the systems y*y''' = -1 and y*y''' = 1 separately and look at the different plots.

The command is ListTools:-Rotate.

Your code may be syntactically correct in the sense that the parser accepts it, but I would not call it syntactically correct in the broader sense. Your call to DirectSearch:-Search contains the constraint

dist(a, b, x_1, y_1, z_1, x_2, y_2, z_2, phi_1, psi_1, theta_1, phi_2, psi_2, theta_2)[1] >= 0.1e-1

This forces a call to dist with symbolic arguments, which, of course, is nearly impossible to compute, although DirectSearch:-GlobalOptima apparently tries. Note that this call to DirectSearch:-GlobalOptima occurs before the call to DirectSearch:-Search because it happens when the arguments are being evaluated before being passed. To correct the problem, change the constraint to procedural form:

(a, b, x_1, y_1, z_1, x_2, y_2, z_2, phi_1, psi_1, theta_1, phi_2, psi_2, theta_2)->
     evalb(
          dist(a, b, x_1, y_1, z_1, x_2, y_2, z_2, phi_1, psi_1, theta_1, phi_2, psi_2, theta_2)[1]
          >= 0.01
     )

Then dist will only be called with numeric arguments.

The derivative of almost any numeric or symbolic procedure can be done with D; it works on a much wider range of procedures than does codegen[GRADIENT].

ODE:= diff(y(x),x$2) - 1.0325*diff(y(x),x) + 1.36*y(x) = sin(2*x):
S1:= dsolve([ODE, y(0)=0, y(1)=1], numeric, y(x), 'output'= listprocedure):
D2:= D(eval(diff(y(x),x), S1)):

plot(D2(t), t= 0..1, thickness= 3);

However, I suspect (but I am not sure) that the second derivative constructed from the original ODE is more numerically stable than the one produced by D. That is because in this case D does not differentiate the code of the procedure (it cannot understand the complex code output by dsolve), but rather it constructs a template for numeric differentiation. In the case of simpler procedures, D actually differentiates the procedures' code just like codegen[GRADIENT] does.

It can be easily done with map2 and the elementwise operator ~; no explicit looping is required.

The package linalg is old and deprecated. Replace calls to its commands with calls to the equivalent commands from the packages VectorCalculus or LinearAlgebra.

In my code below, note the correct way to construct the Jacobian procedure Df with unapply. The way that you were using, with ->, was recomputing the Jacobian symbolically for every pair of numeric arguments---very inefficient.

Download Predator_Prey.mw

Here's a somewhat automated way to get a numeric procedure for the second derivative using the solution returned by dsolve and the original ODE.

ODE:= diff(y(x),x$2) - 1.0325*diff(y(x),x) + 1.36*y(x) = sin(2*x):
S1:= dsolve([ODE, y(0)=0, y(1)=1], numeric, y(x), 'output'= listprocedure):
D2:= unapply(subsindets(eval(solve(ODE, diff(y(x),x$2)), S1[2..-1]), procedure, P-> 'P'(x)), x):

plot(D2(x), x= 0..1, thickness= 3);

Note that the x in the plot command is superfluous. I could just as well have used plot(D2, 0..1). I included the x to emulate your coding style from the original plot.

This is known as the one-dimensional bin-packing problem. See the Wikipedia article "Bin-packing problem".

Here's an even more programmatic solution. In particular, I have automated the count of the maximum number of files per disk. And I put the output in a more convenient format. The algorithm is the same as Kitonum's. This algorithm is probably not very good if very many of the smallest file can fit on a disk or if there are very many different file sizes.

BinPacking1D:= proc(
     Size::positive, #Size of bins or disks
     #List of pairs: [object size, number of objects of that size]:
     Objects::list([positive, posint])
)
uses C= combinat, LT= ListTools;
local
     Szs:= map2(op, 1, Objects), #Sizes
     Cts:= table((`=`@op) ~ (Objects)), #Counts
     All:= (`$`@op) ~ (Objects),
     m, size, g,
     S:= select(g-> `+`(g[]) <= Size, [seq(C:-choose(All, m)[], m= 1..trunc(Size/min(Szs)))]),
     V:= table([seq(g= nprintf("%a", g), g= S)]) #Decision variables    
;
     (e-> parse(lhs(e))=rhs(e)) ~
          (select(
               e-> rhs(e)<>0,
               Optimization:-LPSolve(
                    `+`(entries(V))[],
                    [seq(add(V[g]*LT:-Occurrences(size, g), g= S) = Cts[size], size= Szs)],
                    assume= [integer, nonnegative]
               )[2]
          ))
end proc:

BinPacking1D(1.44, [[0.8, 3], [0.7, 12], [0.4, 15]]);

You have three errors:

1. You cannot use square brackets or curly braces to substitute for parentheses. Only parentheses can be used for algebraic grouping. The other brackets and braces have their own meanings.

2. The letter e means nothing to Maple on input; you need to use the function exp. So, e^x becomes exp(x).

3. Remove the "=energy" part of the equation; use only the left side. The plot3d command plots expressions or procedures, not equations. 

The unknowns are _C1, ..., _C4, not C1, ..., C4. If you include the underscores, the solve command will quickly return your solutions.

solution:= solve({t11 = 0, t22 = 0, t3 = -B, t4 = -A}, {_C1, _C2, _C3, _C4});

In the 2D input, which is what you are using, I believe that you must enter the underscores by typing \_ (backslash underscore).

You have a bug in the line

M_finish:= (X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4,X_5,X_6,z)->
     M_1*X_1+M_2*X_2+M_3*X_3+M_4*X_4+M_5*X_5+M_6*X_6+M_F:

I'll use a simplified example to explain the bug:

restart:
M:= 2*z:
f:= z-> M:
f(1);

f(2);

You see, the z that is inside M is the global z and not the z that is the parameter of f. The correct way to construct the procedure f is with unapply:

f:= unapply(M,z);

f(1);

      2