So by solving a second pde (that has nothing to do with the one you are trying to solve) along side the original PDE you want a solution for, you are able to arrive at the correct solution?  That's interesting.

I cannot manipulate your workaround to work properly with the original 2010 problem.  Can you please show explicitly?  I still get newton iteration is not converging.

Error, (in solnproc) unable to compute solution for t>1.39999999999999990:
Newton iteration is not converging

So by solving a second pde (that has nothing to do with the one you are trying to solve) along side the original PDE you want a solution for, you are able to arrive at the correct solution?  That's interesting.

I cannot manipulate your workaround to work properly with the original 2010 problem.  Can you please show explicitly?  I still get newton iteration is not converging.

Error, (in solnproc) unable to compute solution for t>1.39999999999999990:
Newton iteration is not converging

Be able to have the same worksheet opened in two separate windows.

Thanks Preben for looking into this.  Much appreciated.

I had access to Maple 16 the other day and tried a 5th order of T(x,t) for which it also complained about a solution that is not converging. 

Thanks Preben for looking into this.  Much appreciated.

I had access to Maple 16 the other day and tried a 5th order of T(x,t) for which it also complained about a solution that is not converging. 

In this case it looks like Maple scales vector graphics seperate from graphical objects rather than as one completed piece.  (the vector graphic being the line you inserted)

I think the only work around here, I think,  is to add another vector graphic line (white so it doesn't show printed) below the black line to trick it to sizing the black line.  Of course it'll have to be trial and error to get the black line to size right.  Not sure it'll work but it's worth a try.

I recalled a different bug trying to figure out why when I printed the printing was so big.  I found out that printing in draft rather than standard mode on my cannon printer caused the printed format size to go large rather than diffuse the printing to extend ink life.  I believe that part, luckily, was fixed.  Hopefully in your case a 16.02 update will be released. 

Just out of curiosity.  July 20,2011 was when this bug was being worked on and there was no 15.02 update for Maple 15.  It went straight to Maple 16.  I am certain this was fixed before Maple 16 started it's Beta testing so why were no further updates initiated prior to the release of Maple 16?

Now my question is this - Is there a threshold number of bugs that need to have been reported / fixed before an update is considered?  I'm guessing probably yes.  It's almost as if the fixes were made and a decision was instead to have it included in the newer Maple version rather than to compile an update for the users. 

That would be zero benefit to any Maple 15 user but what sort of added value is that for Maple16 when a plethora of other commands are already being included.  In my opinion, I don't think the overall benefit is substantial where-as a Maple 15.02 update would have been seen as a tremendous welcome from the Maple community and the added value seen as more valuable than being added in the newer version. 

Do you mean after execution, you want to delete the parts in the output lines?

        You can't do that.  If that is what is happening you need to supress them or as Patrick has mentioned to do something earlier in the code.

Thanks for converting to a post.

It was difficult to determine which algebra product the reviewer actually had.  I'm pretty sure he did not want to tip his hat and give that away.  Although I am not completely 100% certain his investment was mathemetica, a few key statements in other reviews may have given it away but of course the wording is debatable.  One point he made in another review about comparing the home edition of Mathematica to the Professional version, and another saying any budding scientist without mathematics software should purchase the home edition.  Again, my reasoning is objectionable. 

You are right.  Not much using the image package in the application center since that date.  I think there were some cryptography apps using ImageTools but there hasn't been much. 

Similarily with AudioTools.  The one you did on analyzing whale calls (not in the application center) was very cool indeed. 

I have tried this as well.  You have come to the same conclusion I reached.  The text stays horizontal.

This question has been asked in 2006 with no answer http://www.mapleprimes.com/questions/43244-Rotate-Text

There may some trickery which could achieve what you want but not with textplot.  The rules for textplot in the programming do not allow letter rotations.  Hence as well x axis labels cannot be rotated and no solution exists since answers have also do not exist here http://www.mapleprimes.com/posts/133478-X-Axis-Label-Rotation

The trickery would be using rotated images, but too complex and memory expensive. 

I think it makes sense.  -1 means to the last position.  -2 means to the second last position

Take for example

a:=[seq(1..20)]
                         a := [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]

a[..-1]
        [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]

a[..-2]

        [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]

Not sure if answers ordering was fixed yet or, er, changed.  There are many many people who agree with you although we get no feedback.  There seems to be no comments by anyone running mapleprimes lately (2 years or so? and ticking) 

Maybe they do not reply here anymore because they believe everything is A O kay.  It's like your car that gets you from point A to point B.  If it gets you there, there's no problem and no need to service it. 

No, I wasn't being serious about the Wolfram idea of Maple 10's funtionality.  It's hard to convey sarcasm with words, although that would be a good plug for Maple if one were on their side.  But seriously, Wolfram probably just had some re-organization at the time.

Aside - Although I did say you can't really compare the number of functions to each other, I can't help but see how many more functions Maple has over Mathematica.  Are there still things in Mathematica, Maple can't do?  or that Maple can't do as easily?

Just pulled off this graphic in the product history on maplesoft which pretty much answers my question.  Here it is to compare to Mathematica's little graph referenced earlier in the Maple 16.01 post.

Evolution of the number of functions in Maple from 2000-2011

The evolution of the number of functions appears to be relatively linear.  Now let's compare that with the Mathematica graphic.

It appears Mathematica is only just reaching Maple 10's functionality.  But yet it has more of it's fair share in the market (you can top that one off to Mathematica's eye candy that really grabbed everyones attention).  So why the jump after version 5?  They probably just then realized how much further ahead Maplesoft's Maple was.