Dear Acer,

     Thanks for providing the "polar split" function and showing how I can add this to the Complex Maps submenu.  There are obviously things I don't (yet) understand without reading the manual, but it is now clear to me that, with the nice example you provided in front of me, I should be able to add on to ("customize") Maple so that it does not only what I want it to do, but "looks nice" in the process.

BS

Dear Acer,

     Thanks for providing the "polar split" function and showing how I can add this to the Complex Maps submenu.  There are obviously things I don't (yet) understand without reading the manual, but it is now clear to me that, with the nice example you provided in front of me, I should be able to add on to ("customize") Maple so that it does not only what I want it to do, but "looks nice" in the process.

BS

Dear Acer,

The explanation of how to run evalc from within Apply a Command was exactly what I needed!  Where can I find (in the manual, or in the on-line documentation) further information on how to do this?  [I could not find a description of "Apply a Command", but was probably not looking in the right place[.

While I'm excited by the possibility of making a "Cartesian-complex to Argand-complex" right-click command, the notes that you so kindly indicated suggest (to me) that I really don't want to undertake this now!  Too bad one couldn't "leverage" the higher-level power of Apply-a-Command + the commands you indicated in a simple way and build a new command, complete with arrow, without needing to descend into low-level (and slightly obscure) code.

BS

Dear Acer,

The explanation of how to run evalc from within Apply a Command was exactly what I needed!  Where can I find (in the manual, or in the on-line documentation) further information on how to do this?  [I could not find a description of "Apply a Command", but was probably not looking in the right place[.

While I'm excited by the possibility of making a "Cartesian-complex to Argand-complex" right-click command, the notes that you so kindly indicated suggest (to me) that I really don't want to undertake this now!  Too bad one couldn't "leverage" the higher-level power of Apply-a-Command + the commands you indicated in a simple way and build a new command, complete with arrow, without needing to descend into low-level (and slightly obscure) code.

BS

I actually know part of how to do what I want, but not how to "hide the details" and make it look like 2D math.  Here's my approach --

Start with the example expression "tau s + 1".  Do the substitution of "I omega" for s by doing Evaluate at a Point and substituting I omega for s.  Now do a Complex Map and choose a + bI form (this might not always be necessary, but if I ends up in the denominator, this step helps).

To get this complex expression into phasor form (gain and phase), the command "map(evalc(polar(XXX)))" (where you put whatever you got in the previous step in place of XXX) gives you the answer I'm seeking, possibly needing one more "simplify" to look better.  The first responder ("Pagan") suggested using Apply a Command, which sounds just like what I'd like to do, but how do I apply three commands and "hide the details"?  Ideally I'd like to go from the a + bI form in one step (" ... and a miracle happens here ...") to the polar form, all done symbolically.

I actually know part of how to do what I want, but not how to "hide the details" and make it look like 2D math.  Here's my approach --

Start with the example expression "tau s + 1".  Do the substitution of "I omega" for s by doing Evaluate at a Point and substituting I omega for s.  Now do a Complex Map and choose a + bI form (this might not always be necessary, but if I ends up in the denominator, this step helps).

To get this complex expression into phasor form (gain and phase), the command "map(evalc(polar(XXX)))" (where you put whatever you got in the previous step in place of XXX) gives you the answer I'm seeking, possibly needing one more "simplify" to look better.  The first responder ("Pagan") suggested using Apply a Command, which sounds just like what I'd like to do, but how do I apply three commands and "hide the details"?  Ideally I'd like to go from the a + bI form in one step (" ... and a miracle happens here ...") to the polar form, all done symbolically.

Thanks.  Evaluate at a Point seems to be the most "natural" method for doing substitutions.  And I did know that "I" is the imaginary unit in Maple (though not to mathematicians ...).  Now if I could only get Maple to take a symbolic complex number (e.g. 1 + I omega tau) and get it to give me the (symbolic) abs and arg values (e.g. sqrt (1 + sqr(omega tau)) and arctan (omega tau)) ...

BTW -- I forgot to title my original post, so I added one for this followup question.

Thanks.  Evaluate at a Point seems to be the most "natural" method for doing substitutions.  And I did know that "I" is the imaginary unit in Maple (though not to mathematicians ...).  Now if I could only get Maple to take a symbolic complex number (e.g. 1 + I omega tau) and get it to give me the (symbolic) abs and arg values (e.g. sqrt (1 + sqr(omega tau)) and arctan (omega tau)) ...

BTW -- I forgot to title my original post, so I added one for this followup question.

The original sum was created using 2D Math, and the sum was the Sigma expression, i = 1 .. N, which implicitly "assumes" that N is an integer.  I'm new to the forum, so "pasted" the example code from my document using the "Maple Math" button on the entry screen, which entered Maple code instead.  I just tried setting up the 2D expression and putting in the assumption of integer N, but this seems to involve "simplify" with an additional "unnecessary" assumption (namely that N is an integer).  Is it possible that "assuming" is really doing "simplify" behind the scenes?