What do you want the procedure to output/return? If you want some plots, your procedure doesn't have any plot commands to return. Do you want to return the 30 values of w? In its current form, the procedure only returns the 30th value of w, but it could be easily modified to return them all.

@nm Okay, I got the error. It seems like the debugger does not respect that ':-ic' is an unassigned global symbol. That is shown by the keyword argument becoming [ ]= [ ] as seen in the error message. And I agree that that lack of respect has something to do with using either form of coercion with a keyword parameter.

@vs140580 Yes, there's some new $ syntax in Maple 2022. Try this:

restart
:
RelationGraph:= proc(f, V::list({integer, symbol, string}))
local n:= {$1..nops(V)}, i, F:= i-> j-> f(V[i],V[j]);
    GraphTheory:-Graph(V, [seq](select(F(i), n, _rest), i= n))
end proc
:
ConormalProduct:= proc(
    G::Graph, H::Graph, {vertex_format::{string, symbol}:= "%A:%A"}
)
local Vg, Vh, E, P, i, j, Vgh, J;
    (Vg,Vh):= GraphTheory:-Vertices~([G,H])[];
    E:= op~(4, [G,H]);
    P:= [seq](seq([i,j], j= 1..nops(Vh)), i= 1..nops(Vg));
    Vgh:= (curry(sprintf, vertex_format)@((i,j)-> (Vg[i],Vh[j]))@op)~(P);
    J:= op~(table(Vgh=~ P));
    RelationGraph((a,b)-> ormap(i-> J[b][i] in E[i][J[a][i]], [1,2]), Vgh)
end proc
:

@nm Once you're in the debugger, what commands do you give to produce the error message? I've never used this, or any other, debugger.

@Alger Okay, your matrix is not truly tridiagonal, and, of course, I didn't see that you said that. So, the tridiagonal solver won't work, at least not directly. 

Is this true?: The nonzero entries are primarily on the 3 principal diagonals; there are "a few" elsewhere. If so, how many is "a few"? What is their pattern, if any?

Or perhaps you mean something like this: Let G be a graph with n vertices and 0 edges. Then G^k = G for any k >= 1. Any permutation of G's vertices is isomorphic to G^k, and all of these permutations are trivially edge disjoint. So, in this case we could say "There are n! edge-disjoint isomorphisms of G in G^k." Is that what you have in mind? Then, extending that idea, I see that perhaps there are some cases of a very sparse G being multiply embeddable in G^k.

I think that I must have the wrong idea about this because I don't see how there could possibly be more than 1 copy of G in G^k. Would you please give an example?

Yes, I know. But the OP said that they do  have a tridiagonal system, so the trivial solver will work for them. The OP seems to be ignoring this Answer. 

@Ronan That's the only thing that I pointed out because that's the only thing that you need to change to solve your entire problem of multi-line descriptions.

I was able to download the worksheet, no problem.

@mehdibgh If I recall correctly, there was once a time when garbage collected memory was not deallocated and returned to the O/S. However, that memory was still available to Maple. But for at least several years now, it is deallocated and that number you see on the status bar can go down. I don't think that the deallocation is done after every single garbage collection, but it's done often enough. 

@ijuptilk You can remove 0, or any other specific value, from a list soln by

remove(`=`, soln, 0)

@Alger Don't use storage= sparse. For what I showed to work, you must use shape= band[1,1]. That will also automatically set storage= band[1,1]. If you add storage= sparse to that, it'll override the storage= band[1,1], and the wrong compiled solver will be used. It'll use SparseIterative (NAG procedures hw_f11zaf, hw_f11daf, hw_f11dcf). The direct band matrix solver is CLAPACK procedures hw_dgbtrf_ and hw_dgbtrs_.

@FDS Note that inside the procedure MyProc, all of the parameters are scalars, and all of the arithmetic is scalar. And if you were to call it via MyProc(...), then all of the arguments would need to be scalars also. But if you simply change the call to MyProc~(...), then any subset of the arguments can be vectors as long as they're the same length and orientation (column or row). If you do it this way, then there's no need for loops or seq; that's all done behind the scenes by using the little ~. The same can be done using lists instead of vectors, though there's no benefit to doing that.  

Does your coefficient matrix have a special sparsity pattern, such as banded or tridiagonal?