Just read (and slightly edited) Wikipedia article about Maple. It has a picture of a stair-type plot of

plot(ln(x+2)/(x+2), x = .716 .. .72);

I checked it and it seems to look normal in Standard Maple (so I uploaded it there), but looks bad in Classic, independently of numpoints setting (it is not mine stair-like picture there). Is it going to be fixed, or Classic Maple is deprecated?

Alec

As it has appeared recently, in some examples Maple can't find int(1+f(x), x) in some cases where it can find int(f(x), x). For example, for f(x) = (x^2)^(1/3).

Now, reading Axel Vogt's post, I noticed that in some examples Maple can't do such a simple change of variables as changing the sign.

From time to time I check whether the situation with Latex in Maple has improved. Just one random example:

latex(2*x/(x-1));

2\,{\frac {x}{x-1}}

Is it really that hard to do a simple fraction?

Even double quotes in the math mode are still transcribed to a pair of single quotes, as if they were in the text mode,

latex("x");

``x''

Not even talking about spreadsheets and other total failures.

Is latex going to be deprecated (together with all other lower case commands)?

Alec

`&*`:=1:
f:=(a,b)-> a &* b:
plots[densityplot](f,0..1,0..1,
    colorstyle=HUE, axes=boxed, style=patchnogrid);

gives the same plot as

plots[densityplot](`*`,0..1,0..1,
    colorstyle=HUE, axes=boxed, style=patchnogrid);

The ampersand is ignored!

It is interesting that replacing f with f[1] produces a plot that it should produce. This works reverse to the evalf bug - works OK indexed, and not OK - not indexed.

I suggest adding descriptions of variable, size, and factors() to the GF help page. Currently, they are not even mentioned there.

Alec