The function

110 Reputation

4 Badges

2 years, 240 days

MaplePrimes Activity


These are replies submitted by The function

@tomleslie 
That seems to work. 

Thank you very much!

Greetings,

The function

How can I make the graph display right if i use the Polar coordinate system. 

Thank you!

Greetings,

The function

#Voorbeeld 6

restart

plots:-inequal([0 <= x and x <= sqrt(-y^2+4), 0 <= y and y <= 2], x = -2 .. 2, y = -2 .. 2)

 

plots:-inequal([0 <= y and y <= sqrt(-x^2+4), 0 <= x and x <= 2], x = -2 .. 2, y = -2 .. 2)

 

#Voorbeeld 7

restart; with(plots); display(inequal([-(3/2)*sqrt(2) <= x and x <= 0, -x <= y and y <= sqrt(-x^2+9)], x = -3 .. 3, y = 0 .. 3), inequal([0 <= x and x <= (3/2)*sqrt(2), x <= y and y <= sqrt(-x^2+9)], x = -3 .. 3, y = 0 .. 3))

 

restart; with(plots); display(inequal([0 <= y and y <= (3/2)*sqrt(2), -y <= x and x <= y], x = -3 .. 3, y = 0 .. 3), inequal([(3/2)*sqrt(2) <= y and y <= 3, -sqrt(-y^2+9) <= x and x <= sqrt(-y^2+9)], x = -3 .. 3, y = 0 .. 3))

 

Download Mapleprimes_Question_Book_2_Paragraph_6.2_Example_6_and_7.mw

@tomleslie 

Yes this is exactly what i meant. The thing is, i have tried a couple of varieties of possibilities to put some syntax down that might have worked, but non of it gave me anything. So thank you very much!

I did it like this now, while i  think it looks a bit cleaner, or more uniform with what i have already put down. :)

restart; with(plots); display(inequal([0 <= y and y <= 1, 2*y*(1/3) <= x and x <= 2*y], x = 0 .. 4, y = 0 .. 4), inequal([1 <= y and y <= 3, 2*y*(1/3) <= x and x <= 2], x = 0 .. 4, y = 0 .. 4))

 

``

Download Mapleprimes_Question_Book_2_Paragraph_6.2_Example_3.mw

Greetings,

The function

@mmcdara 
Finally someone who agrees that the book is wrong. But for a different reason than my complaint. :P 

Any way thank you for the answer. 

I found what i was looking for with the "simple answer", i will go through the package tomorrow. 

Greetings,

The Function

@dharr 

Hello, thank you for the answer. I am pretty amazed how that last piece of line actually gave all the answers in one go. So, that actually is the "trick" to get to the solution. I hope its going to be the end all of my problems in this chapter. 

Without giving C and R a value when doing the least squares calculations just gave a long summation of the formula v(t). So it didnt really look satisfying. 

I still have a feeling everything i did in "Advanced Problem Solving Using Maple" up till now sticked the most in my mind. The sequence part look familiar. O well. So many commands i dont know yet. I really dont know what the right path will be to finish all the engineering books i have in store, should i finish the Dutch math book, and then have a go at it, or should I first finish "Advanced Engineering Mathematics" (which wont be finished just like that, i think it might take up to a year to pull it off)? I will have to make some progress real soon. 

Any way, thank you. 

Greetings,

The Function 

@acer 
I suspected it was some letter already used in the worksheet. Good that i now know what it is and what to look for next time. Letters being used globally, while they should only be used locally. 

Its funny how maple has multiple ways to get to the same answer. Hopefully i will become better at maple. Ive seen that "proc" command earlier, but it did not come to my mind to use it. There must be a point where things will start to speed up with the learning curve. I remember english being the same sort of deal. Its hard at first, but its whenever you become a bit provisioned is when things really start to speed up. 

Thank you!

Greetings,

The Function 

@mmcdara 

Thank you for the reply. I am going to keep it in mind that there are multiple ways of solving the problem. 

It may come in handy one day. For now im going to use the other answer. I did use some of my earlier questions to get to the right answers. So it sure is great to have this archived.

Thank you!

Greetings,

The Function

@dharr 

This certainly looks a lot like what i was looking for. It seems to be exacly that.

Offtopic:

Usually each paragraph of the math book has something explained in maple language. But there was no such thing. Glad to have the need filled in. 

I think i will persue to leave no stones unturned, and make every maplebook i have right now. This should enable me to do all the math all the engineering books ive gathered. I tried a calculation of a mechanics and statics book that would usually take half an hour to make with a calculator. 1 minute it took me. All the invested time should pay off in the long run.

Im thinking about some concrete and building calculations, and build a multiple story house, while i did learn a lot of plumbing, electrican, welding, machining, concrete, carpentry, and CAD drawing. It should go fast and easy. Did i mention ground mechanics before? This looks like something that is even more complicated than concrete calculations. Yes, i think it will be great to have Maple as a tool. 

Just to let you know i am very thankful for all the answers, and this is how im going to make good use of it. As i will make use of it making (organic)chemistry, fluid mechanics etc. etc. :D

Greetings,

The Function

@vv He vv,

indeed the extrema is something that can be used, but i could not get it to work otherwise. Now with the way you explained it. I did find out that indeed the asked way to do it was doable now. THank you very much. I finally got to the point i could try it myself. And very happy that it worked out just fine. 

It looks like you are the winner of the question. 

Greetings,


The Function

@tomleslie 

Well, to me it looked like te red code was just a text mode.. I didnt get why the "#" mark needed to be there before you could wright. Like i said the book leaves you in the dark with a lot of things. Now i know it is 1D and black 2D mode. 

So, i always used 2D mode. It runs evertything (most of the times) if it works, fine with me. It is kind of hard to find a book on maple that really shows you the program and how its used. I did try "Advanced Problem Solving With Maple A First Course", i made all the refered sheets and some parts of the book. But it felt like an English bording school, and i was running into parts i could not get done. So i knew about the two Dutch books, and that Maple was thought through that. Not too pleased about it.. But im going to finish those 2, the first one is long done (glad that is over). And the "new" book, "Advanced Engineering Mathematics" (which i suspect the writers of the Dutch math books got their maple from, and they just left a large part out (with all explaination), so that you should be able to make all the engineering books from "higher job education". Just to make some quick money, due to "Toegepaste Wiskunde Deel 1" a lot of first year students failed to stay in the study program, time and again). So i am actually hoping the "new book" is better than the rest. Especially while Maple advertises a renewed version of it on their website. "Advanced Problem Solving With Maple A First Course" wasnt bad, dont get me wrong, but the repertoire, o man.. In some occations it worked out great, in others i felt like decisions were being made without my consent (like in bording school). And that is how you "have it". Well... 

Okey, red 1D and black 2D. Point noted. 

Thank you!

Greetings,

 

The Function 

 

@tomleslie
Thank you very much! It is a lot more clear now. But, there is one thing. Why is it when the text is in black and not in red that the syntax doesnt work?

Its so odd. It says "invalid arrow procedure".. :S 

 syms:= [x,y,z]:
  toEq:= pl-> local j;
              seq( `if`( type(pl[j], symbol),
                         NULL,
                         syms[j]=pl[j]
                       ),
                       j=1..3
                 ):
  toEq(TP1);
  toEq(TP2);
  toEq(TP3)

z = -(1/2)*2^(1/2)*(x-4+y)

 

y = -x+2*2^(1/2)

 

x = 2

(1)

"  syms:= [x,y,z]:    toEq:= pl-> local j;                seq( `if`( type(pl[j], symbol),                           NULL,                           syms[j]=pl[j]                         ),                         j=1..3                   ):    toEq(TP1);    toEq(TP2);    toEq(TP3)  "

Error, invalid arrow procedure

"  syms:= [x,y,z]:   toEq:= pl-> local j;   seq( `if`( type(pl[j], symbol),   NULL,   syms[j]=pl[j]                         ),   j=1..3                   ):   toEq(TP1);   toEq(TP2);   toEq(TP3)  "

 

``

Download Mapleprimes_Question_Book_2_Paragraph_5.5_Question_2b_2c_TAKE_3.mw

@rlopez 

Im new to maple, im glad that it is there, it is such a handy tool. I have no clue on what is inside all the packages. Its all new.Just doing what my books tells me to do. But it leaves some areas where it is not all to clear about Maple. Usually i come to mapleprimes, and get answers that dont look like anything that is written in the book. Only trying to understand why some values were chosen. 

Thank you for the comments!

Greetings,

The Function

@rlopez 

Thank you for the answer!

I looked into it in Maple, but i dont understrand why for question b. Pi/2 and Pi/4 was taken as value for s and t. These values were not mentioned in the question. It may be something that i am missing. :) So i did use sqrt(2) and 0 for the values of s and t, and got an answer that does not look like the books given answer.

Futher Im not seeing the formula of the sphere being input anywhere. is that the "<2,s,t>" part? The square root of 4 is 2, but do -x and -y just disappear? I mean, dont expect someone that is learning math to be able to follow in on everything that is being said. I believe anything you say, but i really cant see how this is done. The answer of b. was right, but it looks like a tailered way to get to the right answer instead of taking anything appearent as the input. I cant help it, but that is what it looks like. 

If you want a metaphore: it feels like skating on ice, you dont know why the water is hard, and you can stand on it, but you are skating.. 

Greetings,

 

The Function



 

@justauser 

I think you are right. It was too obvious though. Its like looking for your glasses while they are on top of your head. 

Greetings,

The Function 

So what would the real anwer be? Isolated singularities. Yes, I get that these may or may not be there. But how would one get there? And what am i looking for to know that there is no such singularity. Even p=0 gave an answer.

Because formulating that would actually be the answer for: no singularity that gives no inverse of A. But what proves it?

Is @justauser right? I mean, that sounds like the best answer to me. I saw it yesterday, and thought well that must be it, but i wanted to get more feedback to see if there are more ideas on this problem. So there is no singularity that would freak out the whole determinant is 48? It certainly cant be the case right? 

So its just trying some numbers for p, looking at the answer and conclude that it must be so that there is no singularity that causes no inverse for A.

To me that does not satisfy a lot, it does work. But what if there is a perforation, or one value that gives a problem. What if you have such an equation and it gives an error at a certain value all of a sudden when you lunch a rocket to the moon. Then what?

Greetings,

The Function

@Carl Love 

And i thought that i did do check everything. It seems to work just fine. Even with the less cumbersome way of doing it. 

No nothing wrong with the book. 

Packages will have to be loaded, and all symbols have to be just right. Okey, point noted. I just dont get how it did not occur to me. 

Greetings,

The Function 

1 2 3 4 5 Page 1 of 5