Pages 4 and 5 of this link
http://staff.science.uva.nl/~heck/instaptoetsen/ahlvg2.pdf
show an example of a MapleTA question that gives partial credit. See page 6 for some discussion. So it is not altogether true that MapleTA answers can only be right or wrong.
Sorry I cannot help you on the chaining question.
Maybe I will re-map my keyboard so that the spacebar becomes * and * becomes the "space character".
Then I will have implied multiplication with dignity.
Our summer online sessions are running now. I can see that when you tested the quiz many (about 35) of our summer session students were hammering away at MapleTA. So this trial is realistic.
I have edited questions on our server for a few years now. I find the delay while editing somewhat troublesome, but not too bad, at least when you get conditioned to predictable delays. Certainly loading, saving, or downloading a medium large question bank can be slow. These waits might be about 5 minutes. Your question bank seems relatively small, and loaded and saved in about 30 sec. But once a question bank is loaded, editing is not too slow.
At another level, authoring questions is time consuming. You have to think about issues at many levels, and your brain works faster than the MapleTA question bank editor can flip from one stage to the next.
I love LaTeX, but LaTeX authoring seemed to introduce even more levels and delays and bugs, so I just use the MapleTA editor.
Once you get going on an authoring project, somebody will walk into your office and start talking, and then MapleTA will time you out.
MapleTA cannot hear your scream.
Our summer online sessions are running now. I can see that when you tested the quiz many (about 35) of our summer session students were hammering away at MapleTA. So this trial is realistic.
I have edited questions on our server for a few years now. I find the delay while editing somewhat troublesome, but not too bad, at least when you get conditioned to predictable delays. Certainly loading, saving, or downloading a medium large question bank can be slow. These waits might be about 5 minutes. Your question bank seems relatively small, and loaded and saved in about 30 sec. But once a question bank is loaded, editing is not too slow.
At another level, authoring questions is time consuming. You have to think about issues at many levels, and your brain works faster than the MapleTA question bank editor can flip from one stage to the next.
I love LaTeX, but LaTeX authoring seemed to introduce even more levels and delays and bugs, so I just use the MapleTA editor.
Once you get going on an authoring project, somebody will walk into your office and start talking, and then MapleTA will time you out.
MapleTA cannot hear your scream.
The usage of $ is yet another example of a clash between MapleTA and Maple.
Here is a workaround for $ in a MapleTA algorithm:
$n=range(2,6);
$ex=maple("diff(cos(x),seq(x,i=1..$n))");
Here are other examples of a clash:
In MapleTA, do not set up a function like this:
$f=maple("x->x^2");
You get garbage. You need to use
$f=maple("proc(x) x^2 end"); or
$f=maple("unapply(x^2,x)");
although the -> usage was OK in MapleTA 1.** (The conversion cost me a few hours of menial editing.)
Always watch out for ">" usages. Sometimes it will get interpreted as an html tag, especially when used in the "name" field. Things get ever more surreal if you try to juggle this with LaTeX authoring conversion.
My mental image of all this is that MapleTA is built on top of some Brownstone learning base that is analogous to our reptilian brains, and so we need to get used to these inconsistencies, unless and until it is rebuilt.
The usage of $ is yet another example of a clash between MapleTA and Maple.
Here is a workaround for $ in a MapleTA algorithm:
$n=range(2,6);
$ex=maple("diff(cos(x),seq(x,i=1..$n))");
Here are other examples of a clash:
In MapleTA, do not set up a function like this:
$f=maple("x->x^2");
You get garbage. You need to use
$f=maple("proc(x) x^2 end"); or
$f=maple("unapply(x^2,x)");
although the -> usage was OK in MapleTA 1.** (The conversion cost me a few hours of menial editing.)
Always watch out for ">" usages. Sometimes it will get interpreted as an html tag, especially when used in the "name" field. Things get ever more surreal if you try to juggle this with LaTeX authoring conversion.
My mental image of all this is that MapleTA is built on top of some Brownstone learning base that is analogous to our reptilian brains, and so we need to get used to these inconsistencies, unless and until it is rebuilt.
For your first question about plotting an alternating sequence, you probably want something like this:
Seq:=[seq([n,(-1)^n + n^3 / (n^3 +4*n^2 + 8)], n=1..20)];
plot(Seq,style=point);
By the way, I suspect you are forgetting to put the denominator in ( ) so I included these.
For your first question about plotting an alternating sequence, you probably want something like this:
Seq:=[seq([n,(-1)^n + n^3 / (n^3 +4*n^2 + 8)], n=1..20)];
plot(Seq,style=point);
By the way, I suspect you are forgetting to put the denominator in ( ) so I included these.
The email clearly seemed to be aimed at Unix and Network users. Since my 11.01 is a single user profile, I decided to ignore the email.
Maybe I am being too literal. But probably 11.02 is not far in the future.
Another example of irreproducibility, hopefully due to third type (bugs) is this:
> restart;
assume(u1<0);
assume(u2>0);
assume(U>0);
additionally(U
0);
additionally(u0
Another example of irreproducibility, hopefully due to third type (bugs) is this:
> restart;
assume(u1<0);
assume(u2>0);
assume(U>0);
additionally(U
0);
additionally(u0
Linda,
$response[1] might look like
x(t)=4*t+3
What we want to do is grab the right hand side, which would be the expression 4*t+3 and turn it into a function X so that we can easily generate points on the line given by the student's parametric equations $response.
Maybe the unapply is confusing. If we had something like
ex:=4*t+3;
then to evaluate it at different values of t, we would have to do something awkward like
subs(t=0,ex);
But if we had instead setup things up by
X:=proc(t) 4*t+3 end proc;
then we could evaluate X to numbers by simply applying X (note the word "apply" here!) to the value of t:
X(1);
What unapply does is to take an expression like 4*t+3 and converts it to a procedure or function:
X:=unapply(4*t+3,t); results in
X:=proc(t) 4*t+3 end proc, which is set up nicely for evaluation.
X(0), X(1), etc.
Linda,
$response[1] might look like
x(t)=4*t+3
What we want to do is grab the right hand side, which would be the expression 4*t+3 and turn it into a function X so that we can easily generate points on the line given by the student's parametric equations $response.
Maybe the unapply is confusing. If we had something like
ex:=4*t+3;
then to evaluate it at different values of t, we would have to do something awkward like
subs(t=0,ex);
But if we had instead setup things up by
X:=proc(t) 4*t+3 end proc;
then we could evaluate X to numbers by simply applying X (note the word "apply" here!) to the value of t:
X(1);
What unapply does is to take an expression like 4*t+3 and converts it to a procedure or function:
X:=unapply(4*t+3,t); results in
X:=proc(t) 4*t+3 end proc, which is set up nicely for evaluation.
X(0), X(1), etc.
Gosh,
Don't you wish you could simply enter the LaTeX code for 2(x+y)? I guess it would be
$2(x+y)$.
For some time, Matlab has had a good LaTeX interpreter that allows you to enter LaTeX code for captions.
Interesting. This does work rather nicely.
But it does not seem to work if you input plot(..., caption=2(x+y)) when "input display" is set to "Maple Notation" instead of "2D Math Notation".
