@Kitonum's solution offers the ultimate in flexibilty, but just linking the points with line segments is the default for plot given a list of points.

Points:=[[1,1],[1,3],[2,2],[3,3],[3,1]]:
plot(Points);

Using style=pointline shows points and lines, and options can be used, but not two colours

plot(Points,style=pointline,color=red,symbol=solidcircle, symbolsize=20,thickness=2);

In Maple 2017, HINT=`*` returns the solution you want among others (though rerunning sometimes gave a different answer). Several answers check out OK with pdetest, but perhaps not all well behaved at the origin. Need another bc/boundedness to make unique?

Download pdsolve2.mw

Maple's numerical solver for partial differential equations does not handle domains of arbitrary shape, such as your aerofoil. There are commercial FEM solvers for such problems, e.g., COMSOL, or open source versions, e.g., freefem.org. Perhaps Maplesim can do this; I'm not sure.

[fsolve(eq,x=-50..150,maxsols=50)];nops(%);

gives 27 solutions.

You could also find them with RootFinding:-NextZero in a loop.

fsolve.mw

I just did this by manually adjusting F''(0) to get a good approximate solution and then used it to solve the boundary value problem. If you play around with F''(0) you will see the solution is very sensitive - it makes an automated shooting method hard to do. It seems harder for inf=20 than inf=10. I think the whole idea of a numerical approximation for eta=infinity when F also goes to infinity makes this method unworkable/inaccurate. I'm guessing a better way would be to pose the problem in terms of G=F', which doesn't go to infinity, and transform the eta variable to run fron 0..1.

zip file contains Fig5.prn, Fig6.prn

Figs.zip

Download Mahapatra2.mw

see ?discont for the help page with examples - in your more complicated case it gives only a RootOf expression, so you would need to work further, e.g., fsolve, to get numerical values in a range. For the simple floor(x) case, it returns _Z1~, meaning all integers.

restart;
ST:= StringTools:
foo := proc(s) ST:-UpperCase(s); end proc;

            foo := proc (s) ST:-UpperCase(s) end proc

foo("a");
 
            "A"

Can reproduce the table 1 values. For table 2, the skin friction corresponds to the second solution but the fig 5 plot corresponds to the first solution, so something in the paper seems wrong. But the secret is to supply some approximate solutions that look like the solution you want.

Download ode.mw

To successively apply functions, use function composition with @. So expand@conjugate@i_ does your i_, then  conjugate, then expand. Edit: function multiplication at #2 now works

composition2.mw

Since the 19.58480220 is recognizable as having units of V^(-1), Vt must be in Volts, and so you want Vt from 0 to 0.0257 V. So you can solve for t and then use a parametric plot.

[Worksheet not displaying right now]

Download Vt.mw

Well, you are a moderator (note the symbol below your avatar), "a selected group of long-time MaplePrimes users with a reputation for positive contributions." - see https://www.mapleprimes.com/help/moderation.

There are some good reasons to edit others' posts; removing copyrighted content is one I've used. Another is removing duplicate copies of posted worksheets.

There are guidelines on the cited page. One of them is:

"In general, try to avoid making spelling or grammar changes unless they are particularly egregious, but feel free to edit message formatting if it messes up the display of the page." Since I don't think @acer's grammar was egregious, perhaps you are in violation :)

But seriously, this policy does not seem to have led to much difficulty.

@dharr OK, I see now what you want - here is how I would do it with laplace. Not sure about with Elziki

laplace.mw

solve(invEqs, {theta[1], theta[2], theta[3]}, explicit) gives two solutions, though they are many pages long. Once you have theta[1], theta[2] and theta[3], you can find sin(theta[1]) or various other derived quantities.

Your 7x7 Matrix has only Rank 6, so it must have Determinant zero, no matter what the values of k, Bi, omega etc are. If this isn't what your expect, you will need to check the construction of the Matrix. I didn't see any obvious reason for this, like two rows or columns the same.

Maple does have this as a builtin command.

CurveFitting:-PolynomialInterpolation(lxi, Lu, xi)

returns