A bug just introduced into the Maple 16.02 Standard GUI plot renderer makes it appear that the above procedure doesn't work with regular plots: The entire plot appears blank. But if you use the context menu "Manipulator" to "Pan" the plot, the curve will appear.

@Alejandro Jakubi Aha! This explains why the Eraser procedure that I posted yesterday in the thread "BubblePlot plotting view" doesn't work on regular plots. The procedure erases points that are not within the VIEW specification of a PLOT by changing the value to undefined. So, it seems that CURVES that have any points set to undefined will not display on the initial view. I don't know yet whether this affects structures other than CURVES, and maybe it's just CURVES specified by a hardware float Matrix. I will test.

@Alejandro Jakubi Aha! This explains why the Eraser procedure that I posted yesterday in the thread "BubblePlot plotting view" doesn't work on regular plots. The procedure erases points that are not within the VIEW specification of a PLOT by changing the value to undefined. So, it seems that CURVES that have any points set to undefined will not display on the initial view. I don't know yet whether this affects structures other than CURVES, and maybe it's just CURVES specified by a hardware float Matrix. I will test.

Okay, I get it. Thanks for the clarification. So is each list LL[k] the complete list of all indices i such that S[i] intersect S[k] = {}?

Oops, I meant Shift-Enter also. Control-Enter gives me the page break in both 1D and 2D. Shift-Enter gives me a newline in both, but no extra space.

Oops, I meant Shift-Enter also. Control-Enter gives me the page break in both 1D and 2D. Shift-Enter gives me a newline in both, but no extra space.

Could you please restate the problem? Are you using LL and S interchangeably? Are you using "list" and "set" interchangeably? Does "nonoverlapping" mean "has empty intersection"? Do you think that the LogicProblem package in the Maple Application Center (the link you gave) can help in solving this problem?

Edit: Corrected spelling of "interchangeably"

@Markiyan Hirnyk 

There are only two complete sentences on the web page in question, and I cut-and-paste them right here: "Maple T.A. is the only testing and assessment system designed for courses involving mathematics. In this video, you’ll see 10 reasons why Maple T.A. is the best choice for your math, engineering, and science courses."  I am not taking sides on this issue, as I know nothing about WebAssign, and very little about MapleTA. I'm just pointing out that they clearly say "only", as was claimed.

@Markiyan Hirnyk 

Ah, I see. Of course the solution can only be unique upto a common multiple of numerator and denominator.

@Markiyan Hirnyk 

Ah, I see. Of course the solution can only be unique upto a common multiple of numerator and denominator.

@Markiyan Hirnyk

I don't understand the point you are trying to make in "One more difficulty". Why did you make eq3 and eq4 the same?

Also, it would useful to sparsify and block-diagonalize the system of linear equations (especially since an exact  solution is required, rather than floating point) by choosing 0 as an evaluation point as much as possible.

@Markiyan Hirnyk

I don't understand the point you are trying to make in "One more difficulty". Why did you make eq3 and eq4 the same?

Also, it would useful to sparsify and block-diagonalize the system of linear equations (especially since an exact  solution is required, rather than floating point) by choosing 0 as an evaluation point as much as possible.

Something that is suspicious to me (and this may be the impetus which caused the OP to originally question the final result) is that the value 1307, which appears in the definition of B and as the upper limit of integration, is suspiciously close to, but not equal to, the value of A at which the abs would make a difference; which you computed to be 1309.46. Replacing both 1307s with this makes a significant difference (rel. err. = 1.6%) in the final result.

Something that is suspicious to me (and this may be the impetus which caused the OP to originally question the final result) is that the value 1307, which appears in the definition of B and as the upper limit of integration, is suspiciously close to, but not equal to, the value of A at which the abs would make a difference; which you computed to be 1309.46. Replacing both 1307s with this makes a significant difference (rel. err. = 1.6%) in the final result.

When you say "their power is limited ... [to], for instance, no more than 3", do you mean that the total degree of the polynomials is at most 3? Or do you mean that the degree, or power, of each individual variable is at most 3?