Is it possible that, in your Mathematica session, the floating-point coefficients in your equation actually have greater known precision than what gets displayed (and thence copied here)?

I ask because the LHS minus the RHS of the translated equation (using FromMma) has a maximum of only around -0.0004138 at around the point 45.065.

Or are you simply talking about the left-hand side of the equation that you posted. You wrote that "it reaches 1". But it is an equation not a function nor an expression. So it's not clear what you are referring to when you write that "it reaches 1".

If you instead meant to convey that the LHS alone gets close to 1, then sure that is true near 0. And for the limited precision coefficients posted it seems to occur at about +/-0.11e-7 which was the meaning of my original reply.

I would phrase it that the LHS of the equation attains a value of 1 (ie. the RHS) at any point which satisfies the equation. Equations themselves don't attain values, although their left- and right-hand-sides do.

But near t=45 the LHS of the posted equation does not quite attain a value of 1, I think. It only gets close, up to about 1.0 - 0.0004138 which is about 0.999586.

Or perhaps the FromMma translator is producing quite a different equation in Maple syntax. But it doesn't look like it to me.

Perhaps someone else will give a second opinion.

If you actually have some exact representation of the general formula, as opposed to a floating-point approximation, then that might be better analyzed and help clear up any questions about the precision to which the coefficient data is known.

acer

Is it possible that, in your Mathematica session, the floating-point coefficients in your equation actually have greater known precision than what gets displayed (and thence copied here)?

I ask because the LHS minus the RHS of the translated equation (using FromMma) has a maximum of only around -0.0004138 at around the point 45.065.

Or are you simply talking about the left-hand side of the equation that you posted. You wrote that "it reaches 1". But it is an equation not a function nor an expression. So it's not clear what you are referring to when you write that "it reaches 1".

If you instead meant to convey that the LHS alone gets close to 1, then sure that is true near 0. And for the limited precision coefficients posted it seems to occur at about +/-0.11e-7 which was the meaning of my original reply.

I would phrase it that the LHS of the equation attains a value of 1 (ie. the RHS) at any point which satisfies the equation. Equations themselves don't attain values, although their left- and right-hand-sides do.

But near t=45 the LHS of the posted equation does not quite attain a value of 1, I think. It only gets close, up to about 1.0 - 0.0004138 which is about 0.999586.

Or perhaps the FromMma translator is producing quite a different equation in Maple syntax. But it doesn't look like it to me.

Perhaps someone else will give a second opinion.

If you actually have some exact representation of the general formula, as opposed to a floating-point approximation, then that might be better analyzed and help clear up any questions about the precision to which the coefficient data is known.

acer

This is an interesting question. Can one add a new "maple-help-style" definition to Maple? I  don't (yet) know the answer. I don't think that it's obvious, either way.

Presumably they live in .hdb databases just like help-pages. It's reasonable to guess that the definitions are stored in lib/SDictionary.hdb and lib/classic/CDictionary.hdb.

It's reasonable to ask whether new definitions can be stored to new (user-created) .hdb files just like new .mw worksheet based help-pages can be added. (The issue that one cannot add to the read-only system .hdb files seems irrelevant to this question.)

Some definitions are very short and appear as tool tip (bubble-help) on mouse hover-over, when referenced in a worksheet. Some longer definitions appear as their own help-pages. Maybe creating new longer help-page definitions entails merely using the right form for the topic (eg. Definition,foobar). Maybe the short tool tip definitions are done the same way, if you're lucky, and the mechanism works simply according to definition length. Or maybe shorter tool tip definitions cannot be added.

acer

This is an interesting question. Can one add a new "maple-help-style" definition to Maple? I  don't (yet) know the answer. I don't think that it's obvious, either way.

Presumably they live in .hdb databases just like help-pages. It's reasonable to guess that the definitions are stored in lib/SDictionary.hdb and lib/classic/CDictionary.hdb.

It's reasonable to ask whether new definitions can be stored to new (user-created) .hdb files just like new .mw worksheet based help-pages can be added. (The issue that one cannot add to the read-only system .hdb files seems irrelevant to this question.)

Some definitions are very short and appear as tool tip (bubble-help) on mouse hover-over, when referenced in a worksheet. Some longer definitions appear as their own help-pages. Maybe creating new longer help-page definitions entails merely using the right form for the topic (eg. Definition,foobar). Maybe the short tool tip definitions are done the same way, if you're lucky, and the mechanism works simply according to definition length. Or maybe shorter tool tip definitions cannot be added.

acer

Neither the "Save as Help Page" top-menu item not the routine makehelp() are as powerful and flexible as the INTERFACE_HELP command.

If one has many .mw files to convert, then point & click tools are about as unproductive as it gets.

Several nice options for INTERFACE_HELP, such as whether to make the page "active" or to include text content directly, are apparently not available in the other mechanisms, "Save as Help Page" or makehelp.

The help and instructions for INTERFACE_HELP are (no big surprise) available in the help-system under the topic INTERFACE_HELP. In stark contrast to that, the top menu's "Save as Help Page" item produces a "Save To Database" pop-up window with no embedded help button. It's help is located only under the main help system and not as an accompanying pop-up, under the more obscure topic "worksheet,reference,addhelp". That topic is harder to locate if you don't already know that it exists and where it lives.

It would be better if all these tools clearly indicated that a writable directory can be used as the first item in libname (so that the system can create a new maple.hdb database there). As things currently are, the pop-up window alone for the menu item "Save as Help Page" gives no hint that this is possible, nor does it give any hint to the help-page which mentions it.

acer

Neither the "Save as Help Page" top-menu item not the routine makehelp() are as powerful and flexible as the INTERFACE_HELP command.

If one has many .mw files to convert, then point & click tools are about as unproductive as it gets.

Several nice options for INTERFACE_HELP, such as whether to make the page "active" or to include text content directly, are apparently not available in the other mechanisms, "Save as Help Page" or makehelp.

The help and instructions for INTERFACE_HELP are (no big surprise) available in the help-system under the topic INTERFACE_HELP. In stark contrast to that, the top menu's "Save as Help Page" item produces a "Save To Database" pop-up window with no embedded help button. It's help is located only under the main help system and not as an accompanying pop-up, under the more obscure topic "worksheet,reference,addhelp". That topic is harder to locate if you don't already know that it exists and where it lives.

It would be better if all these tools clearly indicated that a writable directory can be used as the first item in libname (so that the system can create a new maple.hdb database there). As things currently are, the pop-up window alone for the menu item "Save as Help Page" gives no hint that this is possible, nor does it give any hint to the help-page which mentions it.

acer

Right. And this also agrees with what solve() gave in my reply.

> ss := solve( {seq(x^%T . b =0, x in C)} );
ss := {B = 0, J_1 = J_1, J_2 = J_2}, {B = B, J_1 = 0, J_2 = 0},
 
                  -1/2 I Pi        Pi I
    {B = B, J_1 = ---------, J_2 = ----}
                      B             B
 
> seq( eval(b,x)^%T, x in [ss] );
                                  %1, %1, %1
 
            %1 := [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]

Oh, wait. What if one sets _EnvAllSolutions to be true, before this solve() call? OK, that gives a more general solution, but subsequent simplification also gives the same result.

> _EnvAllSolutions:=true:
> sss := solve( {seq(x^%T . b =0, x in C)} );
                     -I Pi _Z8~        2 I Pi _Z7~
sss := {B = B, J_1 = ----------, J_2 = -----------},
                         B                  B
 
                  -1/2 I Pi (1 + 2 _Z9~)        Pi (1 + 2 _Z7~) I
    {B = B, J_1 = ----------------------, J_2 = -----------------}
                            B                           B
 
> simplify([seq( eval(b,x)^%T, x in [ss] )]);
[[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1],
 
    [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]]

acer

Right. And this also agrees with what solve() gave in my reply.

> ss := solve( {seq(x^%T . b =0, x in C)} );
ss := {B = 0, J_1 = J_1, J_2 = J_2}, {B = B, J_1 = 0, J_2 = 0},
 
                  -1/2 I Pi        Pi I
    {B = B, J_1 = ---------, J_2 = ----}
                      B             B
 
> seq( eval(b,x)^%T, x in [ss] );
                                  %1, %1, %1
 
            %1 := [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]

Oh, wait. What if one sets _EnvAllSolutions to be true, before this solve() call? OK, that gives a more general solution, but subsequent simplification also gives the same result.

> _EnvAllSolutions:=true:
> sss := solve( {seq(x^%T . b =0, x in C)} );
                     -I Pi _Z8~        2 I Pi _Z7~
sss := {B = B, J_1 = ----------, J_2 = -----------},
                         B                  B
 
                  -1/2 I Pi (1 + 2 _Z9~)        Pi (1 + 2 _Z7~) I
    {B = B, J_1 = ----------------------, J_2 = -----------------}
                            B                           B
 
> simplify([seq( eval(b,x)^%T, x in [ss] )]);
[[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1],
 
    [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]]

acer

Nor all products that work alongside Maple are available on all platforms. Examples of that can be found in the MapleConnect suite of add-ons. For example, it was true of the LabVIEW toolbox for Maple 11, I believe.

Or perhaps one might have custom commercial .dll's to work with, or some add-on to Matlab or another 3rd party tool which would only work on Windows and that one wished to connect to from Maple.

In those scenarios running Maple on Windows would be necessary in order to get the connectivity and 3rd party apps to all work. But for other usual Maple work one might well (!) want to work in a sane environment like Linux.

I'm unaware of any restriction with running a validly activated Maple on multiple virtual machines on the same host by the same user. If there were then I'd like to hear about it here.

acer

Entering,

kernelopts(opaquemodules=false):

will subsequently allow those showstat() or eval() calls to access that non-exported local member SendRequest of the HTTP module.

acer

Entering,

kernelopts(opaquemodules=false):

will subsequently allow those showstat() or eval() calls to access that non-exported local member SendRequest of the HTTP module.

acer

Hi Alec,

How should quality control be managed?

For example, I believe that this pair of paragraphs on this page are not correct.

"Only two possibilities exist: either a variable is local to the one procedure which it immediately occurs in, or it is global to the entire Maple session. Local variables are local only to their own procedure. They are not known in other procedures, even within procedures which appear within the procedure which defines them.

If you do not declare your variables to be global or local, Maple decides for you. If a variable appears on the left-hand side of an explicit assignment, then Maple assumes that you intend the variable to be local. Otherwise , Maple assumes than the variable is global to the whole session."

As I interpret those paragraphs, they are both contradicted by the following example,

For example,

> restart:

> x := 17:

> f := proc()
> local x, g;
>    g := proc()
>    local t:
>       t := x:
>       print(t);
>    end proc:
>    x := 13:
>    g();
> end proc:

> f();
                                      13

Upon reading the section "Implicit Local Variables" of the ?proc help-page it becomes more clear that the actual situation in Maple is at odds with the paragraphs above in several ways.

I'm not trying to pick on this entry in particular. I am wondering how to best manage feedback and discussion. Should the wiki have a discussion page for each information page? (I didn't see one. Sorry if I missed it.)

acer

kernelopts(opaquemodules=false):
eval(HTTP:-SendRequest);

acer

"Man is the measure of all things: of those which are, that they are, and of those which are not, that they are not"            -- Tag the mag'

kernelopts(opaquemodules=false):
eval(HTTP:-SendRequest);

acer

"Man is the measure of all things: of those which are, that they are, and of those which are not, that they are not"            -- Tag the mag'

That's a interesting view, Doug. (I realize that it's a suggestion for a possible interpretation, and may not be what you yourself hold fast to.) But doesn't it describe the opposite state of affairs from what Maple does now?

I might make another suggestion on how to interpret such problems: in both cases the integrand (or antiderivative) must be evaluated at floating-point values. So numeric stability is desired. Numeric quadrature routines are often designed with that goal in mind. (Simple example: spurious nonzero imaginary artefacts seem to quite often occur when evaluating exact antiderivatives at approximate values under fixed precision, while numeric quadrature might produce strictly real evaluations.) So maybe Maple should do numeric quadrature in both situations originally posted above.

acer