C_R

2025 Reputation

19 Badges

4 years, 216 days

MaplePrimes Activity


These are replies submitted by C_R

@Scot Gould 

Maple 2024 uses a JDK

different from Maple 2020

I looks to me that this change was required because future support was not guaranteed.

I think future Maple versions will still be Java based because I do not see an alternative for a multiplatform "WORA" application. Even Microsoft supports Java.

Let's hope for a better Java Virtual Machine and/or Microsoft OS interfaces.

@sija 

I did the manual export on a 4k monitor. This might be a reason for better quality.

I do not have 2018 installed,  so I cannot check if the quality changes.

I suggest that you send a separate question for ways to programatically export. 

@nm 

If I add up the displayed Memory of all active worksheets in my session and compare it to the GUI task (javaw.exe): The GUI task has allocated about 2 Gb which is roughly 1/3 of all added Memory entries. This fits to what you said (with quite some overhead).

I have made an "interesting" observation: Memory equals 4.18 M after a new worksheet has been created.

Entering a single character (without enter, i.e. nothing send to the mserver.exe task jet) changes Memory to 54.18 M. This further supports that Memory is GUI related.

I consider your reply to be a good working hypothesis. Thanks

Update: The overhead is probably the Java Virtual Machine required to run Java Code

Does not work for me (2024). What works

expr:=3/2*(y-1)^(2/3)-3/2*x^2-c__1 = 0;
limit(expr,[y = 3,x=-7]);

 

@sija 

With Maple 2024 I get an error before, because plotAll(t) does not exist in the the worksheet where I pasted you code. In which file shall I paste it?

With Maple 2024 I exported manually (right click).

Nice animations.

Suggetion: Saving the files in workbook format could make browsing easier.

@Scot Gould 

Ok, that's statistically significant enough for me to know that I'm not representing an exotic case.

If you want to check one day for installed graphic cards:

Open the device manager (right click on the start button) and expand the display adapters entry.

Looks like this on my machine

@Scot Gould 

 

What you said fits to the observation that the icons that disappear use system functions of the OS.

What I do not know for sure is the first occurrence of this phenomenon. For sure I observed it with 2022, 2023 and 2024. Not sure whether the old Java platform (until Maple 2020) had the issue.

 Ein Bild, das Text, Screenshot, Schrift, Zahl enthält.

Automatisch generierte Beschreibung

Since it takes a while to manifest, I suspect some memory / cache dependencies. Maybe internal and external graphic cards play a role as well.

What would help to reduce the number of suspects would be a log function of Maple which logs session start, number of servers connected to the GUI and memory usage. I don't know if such a thing exists.

What would also help to better understand this issue: Are there configurations/users that do not experience this at all under Windows 10?

Maybe uninstalling Maple 2020, following Ronans advice of removing other java applications, could fix it.

If I may ask, are you running older versions of Maple and do you have an external graphics card (I have an NVIDIA and use Maple in 4k mode)?

This way, all solutions are incorrect

solve(torus1<0,{x,y,z});
eval({%},[x=3,y=2,z=0])

 

After posting the question below I could delete all Tags by using the Manage Tags option.

However, the questions which had no tags a few hours ago now show tags in a new browser session. (I had to restart my computer in the meatime.)

 

Is it possible to delete all tags with the +Manage Tags option? I mean, when I write a post I am always forced to enter a tag.

I checked a few other posts and all had not tags.

dsolve/IC/apply_IC comes to the conclusion that -c__1=0 for the first IC and c__1=0 for the second IC.

Therefore c__1=-c__1=0 which leads to the solution y(x)=c__2*x^2

restart;
trace(`dsolve/IC/apply_IC`);
ode := x^2*diff(y(x), x $ 2) - 2*y(x) = 0;
ic := y(0) = 4, D(y)(0) = -1;
sol_no_IC := dsolve(ode);
sol_with_IC := dsolve([ode, ic]);

I think that the applied method to determine the integration constants (which does not devide by zero) is not appropirate to handle ICs that lead to singularities. Those ICs should be rejected or a warning should be issued.

The fact the ICs produce a valid solution for the ode is a coincidence that makes this case hard to understand.

Update: I have deleted my reasoning about odetest which was based on a wrong assumption on the expected output of odetest for ICs. odetest correctly indicates that something does not fit together.

I add here the crucial step that removed the singularity from the computation of c__1

This step avoids devision by zero errors

and returns an output that I interprete now like this:

At the inital point x=0 the solution of the ode has only one integration constant that could not be determined with ICs.

Prebens reply shows that the integration constant is a parameter which can be determied if one point of the solution for x>0 is given. It is therefore not an initial value problem any more.

I am wondering how this insight (if correct) could be provided to the user.

@janhardo 

ODESteps is in line with nm statements

@acer 

Thank you. This is indeed of interest. I did not know about this option. Strange tha t?solve,details is not refering to it

@MaPal93 

Either

  1. lambda_1*delta_1+lambda_2*delta_2-lambda_3*delta_3>0 and theta<0     or
  2. lambda_1*delta_1+lambda_2*delta_2-lambda_3*delta_3<0 and theta>0

is correct but not complete (does not cover all possibilities). What is missing is

  • lambda_1*delta_1+lambda_2*delta_2-lambda_3*delta_3>0 and theta<0     or
  • lambda_1*delta_1+lambda_2*delta_2-lambda_3*delta_3<0 and theta>0

       and

       (lambda_1*delta_1+lambda_2*delta_2-lambda_3*delta_3<0* theta) < -(-lambda_1-lambda_2-lambda_3)*theta^2

This is what mmcdara tried to express.

The tricky part with inequaltities is that some valid combinations are easily over looked.

For the same reason solve issues warnings. Technically solve could have gone through all combinations as I did. I assume that solve does not do it for the simple reason that evaluation time increases exponentially with each case to investigate (not to mention the amount of output).

Your case was rather easy. There might be cases where solutiosn are only possible with other assumptions like delta__1< delta__2. Whether solve can always find those....

Using my worksheet you can find equivalent solutions solving for other parameters which might be more suitable for you.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Last Page 1 of 37