Inserting the unit "meter" from the palette in 2D input, after a 2, i.e. for 2 meters, I get a Typesetting object where the string "m" is involved, hence unaffected by a previous assignment of the name m:

Typesetting:-mrow(`Typesetting:-mn`("2", mathvariant = "normal"), 
`Typesetting:-mfenced`(`Typesetting:-mi`("m", italic = "true", 
mathvariant = "italic"), mathvariant = "normal", 
`Typesetting:-msemantics` = "Unit", open = "⟦", 
close = "⟧", `Typesetting:-msemantics` = "Unit"));

On the other hand, the string "m" does not seem a valid input for Unit:

Unit("m");
Error, (in Units:-Unit) the unit `m` cannot be represented in the 
system `SI`

However, It seems like a string, that stands for itself, could fit better the role of representing a unit symbol than a name that can be assigned values.

Inserting the unit "meter" from the palette in 2D input, after a 2, i.e. for 2 meters, I get a Typesetting object where the string "m" is involved, hence unaffected by a previous assignment of the name m:

Typesetting:-mrow(`Typesetting:-mn`("2", mathvariant = "normal"), 
`Typesetting:-mfenced`(`Typesetting:-mi`("m", italic = "true", 
mathvariant = "italic"), mathvariant = "normal", 
`Typesetting:-msemantics` = "Unit", open = "⟦", 
close = "⟧", `Typesetting:-msemantics` = "Unit"));

On the other hand, the string "m" does not seem a valid input for Unit:

Unit("m");
Error, (in Units:-Unit) the unit `m` cannot be represented in the 
system `SI`

However, It seems like a string, that stands for itself, could fit better the role of representing a unit symbol than a name that can be assigned values.

With a bit of patience you will achieve your goal. Just post what you have got so far for advancing to the next step.

With a bit of patience you will achieve your goal. Just post what you have got so far for advancing to the next step.

U(y,z)=0 is the solution.

A simple procedure where the parameter has to be a ScientificErrorAnalysis:-Quantity object:

H:=proc(t::specfunc(anything,ScientificErrorAnalysis:-Quantity))
if evalf(t)<1 then 1 else 0 
end if;
end proc:

H(ScientificErrorAnalysis:-Quantity( 2.3, 0.1));
                                  0

H(ScientificErrorAnalysis:-Quantity( 0.3, 0.1));
                                  1

A simple procedure where the parameter has to be a ScientificErrorAnalysis:-Quantity object:

H:=proc(t::specfunc(anything,ScientificErrorAnalysis:-Quantity))
if evalf(t)<1 then 1 else 0 
end if;
end proc:

H(ScientificErrorAnalysis:-Quantity( 2.3, 0.1));
                                  0

H(ScientificErrorAnalysis:-Quantity( 0.3, 0.1));
                                  1

Which claims do you mean? Could you give a specific example? Certainly I am not dishonest. But to be frank, frequently I find your style of writing quite strange and  difficult to follow. So, chances are that I have interpreted your messages differently to your intended meaning.

I do not believe that misinterpretations, that unavoidably occur, justify verbal violence.

It is not a matter of technology but of mathematics. For example, see here a mention to this issue about the not algorithmic character of the complete solution of linear homogeneous PDEs for computing symmetries of differential equations. In this regard, ?pdsolve shows the power of heuristic methods for this and related PDE problems.

In fact I do agree with your argument, but for a different scenario: a problem with algorithmic solution, e.g. sorting a list.

However for a problem where (generically) no algorithmic solution exist, like solving a differential equation, trying heuristic methods is worthwhile. However you cannot predict which will be faster or slower, or even which will succeed at all. So, the main issue is not speed but success. A priori,  the larger number of methods you try, the larger are the chances of success.

I find your message so involved that I cannot understand most of what you have written. In particular I have no idea what it means "You made that up out of whole cloth" (an idiomatic expression?).

What I do get from your message is a high level of aggressivity. I do not understand either its reasons.

May be, if you rewrite your message in a plain, quiet language, I can get your point. Thank you.

In concrete, both these "Distributed Maple" and "HPC" seem rather outdated and, apparently, there is no other sign of  "user space" grid-Maple. If clever people at Maplesoft are working on multikernel parallel competing algorithms, I hope to see their results soon.

Indeed, you will need further adjustments to handle these Quantity objects, in particular to extract the magnitude and error, as in:

x := ScientificErrorAnalysis:-Quantity( 2.3, 0.1, relative);
                       x := Quantity(2.3, 0.23)

evalf( x ), ScientificErrorAnalysis:-GetError( x );
                              2.3, 0.23

And probably introduce conditional statements like:

if t::float then ... 

elif t::specfunc(anything,ScientificErrorAnalysis:-Quantity) then ...
 

Indeed, you will need further adjustments to handle these Quantity objects, in particular to extract the magnitude and error, as in:

x := ScientificErrorAnalysis:-Quantity( 2.3, 0.1, relative);
                       x := Quantity(2.3, 0.23)

evalf( x ), ScientificErrorAnalysis:-GetError( x );
                              2.3, 0.23

And probably introduce conditional statements like:

if t::float then ... 

elif t::specfunc(anything,ScientificErrorAnalysis:-Quantity) then ...
 

A name is a convention. Useful if people more or less agree on its meaning.

Indeed, time limits for methods seem desirable both in sequential and parallel mode. In fact, I wonder whether they are in place at present.

Certainly, the multi-kernel idea is "outside" the Threads main theme of Darin's blog but inside the "spirit" of paralelizing. Would it be worthwhile going to a new thread? Do you mean something like Distributed Maple? I do not remember reading threads on this subject at Mapleprimes. Do you have evidence/pointers of such activities by those lots of  people?

No doubt, I would invest now in this "high level competition" as this is the subject of my concern.