@nm How is it meaningful to my original question to use your identity for the purpose of anything but near-trivial reformulation?

What do you think of this:

Download restatement.mw

There's not that much more going on, in using an equivalent one-off or just a reformulation. I was hoping more for a use of stock commands to provide any intermediary normalizations.

@nm 

https://web.archive.org/web/20170923195225/http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/107315/maple

I wonder whether the submitter has noticed the recovery of most of his semester's work.

@SirFrancisBacon Remove this line from your code, if you still have it:

  constants := D_e, a, R_e

@Adam Ledger I corrected it using the vi editor, looking at the .mw file as plaintext XML.

It happens that I happen to be quite familiar with the XML plaintext format of a worksheet.

This example was not difficult. I recovered all that was actually present and recoverable.

This example from a day or so earlier was slightly more interesting (and it is large, and a great deal more was recovered).

@sand15 I consider it a weakness that simplify is not trying to obtain a normal form (in terms of radicals) for the whole expression as one kind of preliminary step. That seems a natural thing to attempt here, since the expression contains radicals and is of modest size, complexity, and degree.

I did not explicitly state that I consider it a bug because it does not try expand on the whole expression. Perhaps it ought to call expand on the whole expression as one avenue of attack -- I leave that for someone else to figure out. But I do think that it could try radnormal or evala.

The simplify command must involve some heuristics, on practical grounds. I think that this example merits at least consideration by whoever is most expert in its workings.

Have I understood your question properly?

You need to specify how you want B and C to change with respect to each other during the animation. Otherwise your question is ambiguous.

What is the end goal? By which I mean, what do you intend on doing with these piecewise constructs?

Are you going to ever doing anything other than evaluate them at specific points? If not then why incur the heavy cost of constructing them in the first place? Is there something that you want from these piecewise spline constructs that cannot be done directly using CurveFitting:-ArrayInterpolation or the Interpolation package? Both of the latter can be used to evaluate at specific points more quickly than piecewise splines (even univariate piecewise with ordered lookup that allows for bisection search).

@ferago42 In the Maplet popup interface (within which you can add an expression) only 1D Maple Notation is supported.

But, as you indicate, in 2D Input mode in a Document proper the GUI will insert a space if you try and type in a 2 followed by an x.

Perhaps the empty call PlotBuilder() could be taught to utilize a MathContainer embedded component rather than its Maplet interface, for specifying an expression. That would allow for 2D Input mode and such automatic insertion of a space to denote implicit multiplication if you type in a 2 followed by an x.

@Christian Wolinski I will submit a bug report.

These all get it, while simplify alone does not.

restart;
maple_sol:=exp((1/2*(4*x^3+48*x-12*t+4*(9*(-1/3*x^3-4*x+t)^2+256)^(1/2))^(1/3)
               -8/(4*x^3+48*x-12*t+4*(9*(-1/3*x^3-4*x+t)^2+256)^(1/2))^(1/3))
               *((1/2*(4*x^3+48*x-12*t+4*(9*(-1/3*x^3-4*x+t)^2+256)^(1/2))^(1/3)
                 -8/(4*x^3+48*x-12*t+4*(9*(-1/3*x^3-4*x+t)^2+256)^(1/2))^(1/3))^2+12)):

radnormal(maple_sol);

                         / 3             \
                      exp\x  - 3 t + 12 x/

evala(maple_sol);

                         / 3             \
                      exp\x  - 3 t + 12 x/

simplify(expand(maple_sol));

                         / 3             \
                      exp\x  - 3 t + 12 x/

Getting Maple on the Raspberry Pi would require a port of the Maple kernel to the ARM CPU architecture. If such a port were accomplished then IMNSHO there'd be much more interesting platforms than just the Pi.

I don't understand how your comment about contracts makes any sense.

Why do you fail to provide your code that reproduces the problem?

@Mac Dude I think that Christian's suggestion is the same as what I showed by example. That is, custom tickmarks of the integers value converted to strings.

Have you tried  Cmd =

By that I mean Cmd and = together, with no Enter or Return.

Do you have a so-called international keyboard layout, for which the usual keyboard shortcuts don't work? In that case I'd ask whether Alt Enter itself worked.

Your comment makes it sound as if you believe that the local solver found the better point by virtue of its doing a gradient search. That is not what happens, as far as I've seen (and demonstrated in part). What happens is that the local Optimization gradient method fails outright due to the extreme flatness at the supplied initial point. It just happens to then return a better value found at a boundary point for this particular problem -- but for a similar problem it might well return the inferior result.

The GlobalSolve procedure does call the local Optimization solver at some point. Indeed it can do so in several ways (including a gradient search from whatever value the global solver returns). It happens that it does not utilize the approach of passing up front the original initial point to the local solver and utilizing whatever it returns. That would be an improvement that would manifest itself for some examples, but then so also would be the rather ad hoc fashion of checking any arbitary number of local solver calls with various boundary or other initital values. (The number of such possible attempts is indeed ad hoc for other problems in general.)

It happens that the default global search options are slightly too conservative for this particular problem. The use of GlobalSolve options which allows this problem's better value to be found is hardly a major stumbling block. They may be set to low for a wide variety of problems. Changing that would be a much better general change, in my opinion.