Carl Love

26827 Reputation

11 years, 281 days
Himself
Wayland, Massachusetts, United States
My name was formerly Carl Devore.

No need to apologize...

There's no need to apologize. I realize that there's no easy way to avoid multiple answering, and I enjoy seeing a different presentation of essentially the same answer. Anyway, you have the additional information about Explore, which was educational for me.

If someone simul-posts an Answer that seems significantly better than mine, I usually delete mine.

No need to apologize...

There's no need to apologize. I realize that there's no easy way to avoid multiple answering, and I enjoy seeing a different presentation of essentially the same answer. Anyway, you have the additional information about Explore, which was educational for me.

If someone simul-posts an Answer that seems significantly better than mine, I usually delete mine.

Warning: long expression...

Warning: The worksheet attached to the Question has a single expression that is 3753 pages long.

Two solutions...

@maplelearner Note that your variable RootOfLambda has two parts. One of the roots is 0. Your eval statement should be eval(P, lambda= RootOfLambda[2]) so that you select only the second root. At this point, you can continue working with the P expression, even though it contains RootOfs. For example, you can set it to 0 and solve it, getting three simple solutions with no RootOfs.

Numerical solution will not be possible because of your four symbolic constants.

The RootOf is a degree 6 polynomial with symbolic coefficients. Since it's polynomial, it is not considered transcendental, for whatever that's worth. Still, I don't have much hope for simplifying it.

Two solutions...

@maplelearner Note that your variable RootOfLambda has two parts. One of the roots is 0. Your eval statement should be eval(P, lambda= RootOfLambda[2]) so that you select only the second root. At this point, you can continue working with the P expression, even though it contains RootOfs. For example, you can set it to 0 and solve it, getting three simple solutions with no RootOfs.

Numerical solution will not be possible because of your four symbolic constants.

The RootOf is a degree 6 polynomial with symbolic coefficients. Since it's polynomial, it is not considered transcendental, for whatever that's worth. Still, I don't have much hope for simplifying it.

Found it...

@acer Thanks, I found it.

Found it...

@acer Thanks, I found it.

Still having trouble finding it...

Thank you for your response. Let's consider the worksheet with embedded components that was under discussion on this forum yesterday, which I include here for convenience: test.mw

When I do as you suggest on the slider in the upper left, the only code that I see is test:-suwak();. I can't find any other spot on the worksheet that has a context menu with the entry Edit Value Changed Action. Where am I going wrong?

And how does one access the Startup and/or Code Edit Regions?

Still having trouble finding it...

Thank you for your response. Let's consider the worksheet with embedded components that was under discussion on this forum yesterday, which I include here for convenience: test.mw

When I do as you suggest on the slider in the upper left, the only code that I see is test:-suwak();. I can't find any other spot on the worksheet that has a context menu with the entry Edit Value Changed Action. Where am I going wrong?

And how does one access the Startup and/or Code Edit Regions?

Many possible causes...

There are many possible causes for this error. It just means that Maple's kernel process has died. For me, it usually seems related to a computation getting too large or out of control. Unless the message occurs within a few seconds of opening Maple, I seriously doubt that it has anything to do with firewalls.

@maplelearner Please upload a worksheet. A RootOf doesn't necessarily mean that the equation is transcendental, nor does it necessarily mean that there is only the possibility of a numeric solution. You should be proceed with the RootOf as far as you can.

@maplelearner Please upload a worksheet. A RootOf doesn't necessarily mean that the equation is transcendental, nor does it necessarily mean that there is only the possibility of a numeric solution. You should be proceed with the RootOf as far as you can.

VerifyTools still undocumented...

@Alejandro Jakubi Thanks for the very useful information about verify. I note that VerifyTools (used in the thread that your Reply linked to) is still undocumented. The nested verify that Alec discusses there looks like exactly what the Asker in this thread needs.

It has always amazed me how far that checking equality by address identity will get you in Maple. That's the power of automatic simplification.

VerifyTools still undocumented...

@Alejandro Jakubi Thanks for the very useful information about verify. I note that VerifyTools (used in the thread that your Reply linked to) is still undocumented. The nested verify that Alec discusses there looks like exactly what the Asker in this thread needs.

It has always amazed me how far that checking equality by address identity will get you in Maple. That's the power of automatic simplification.

How to solve for 0 if m depends on z/y?...

You could replace m with m(z/y). But if you do that, then I don't see how you could solve {f = 0, g = 0, h = 0} for {x,y,z}.

 First 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 Last Page 646 of 693
﻿