Try

Optimization:-Maximize(y)

I forgot:

From help(Temperature)

Combinations of Temperature objects that are neither affine nor null can be valid as intermediate results of a computation, but they do not typically represent physical concepts. In order to indicate this, they are displayed in red.

combine does remove the unit K in the brackets of the temperature object and adds a unit m (do not ask me why) and then turns everything into red to warn the user).

Instead of using a temperatur object I inserted 90 F from the units pallete. This works and no red output is returned.

If you want to use a previously defined temperature object you can to do it this way.

Temperature(90, Unit(degF));
params := n = Unit('mol'), T = Value(%)*Scale(%), P = 101325*Unit('Pa'), R = evalf(Constant(R, units));

For the second remaning question use convert or simplify

I had this issues on Windows 10 more than 2 y ago and than it dissaperad as it came.

At the time I attributed this to something on the system level when Windows file explorer was attemtping to connect to network drives (which were temporailiy not available).

About a month ago, I had the problem again and did what Joe Riel suggested. I also noticed that the problem occurred right after system restart and it took a while for Maple to start the first instance of mserver.exe (maybe there is some house keeping going on in the background). After that, Mapel worked fine.

At least I am not the only one.

To plot the Maple onliner

plot3d(-2 - sqrt(3)*tanh(1)*tanh(n - 6*tanh(1)*t), t = -5 .. 5, n = -5 .. 5)

something like that should work

% plot grid
t = linspace(-5, 5, 100);
n = linspace(-5, 5, 100);

% compute plot grid values
[T, N] = meshgrid(t, n);

% compute Z values
Z = -2 - sqrt(3)*tanh(1)*tanh(N - 6*tanh(1)*T);

% plot
surf(T, N, Z);

(I don't have Matlab running to test.)

For anything beyond, a Matlab forum can probably provide more answers.

should give you the answer

with(geometry);
_EnvHorizontalName := 'x';
_EnvVerticalName := 'y';
ellipse(p, ['foci' = [[-1, -1], [1, 1]], 'MinorAxis' = 2*sqrt(14)]);
Equation(p);

but does not accept the way I define the foci... Maybe someone can tell whats wrong with it

I do not think that this is an OS issue: I have it on Windows 10 as well.

I assume that this is more an issue of the new Java platform. Here the older platform

There is a global solution (on Windows) you probably don't like:

Reduce the display resolution of the system. When I change form 4K to 2K the tiny rendering is gone.

I am looking forward to Maple 2024, provided Maplesoft can do something about it and its not Oracle.

To your second question (clippings from the Maple Flow user manual): You have to browse Maple commands that you can find on this website.

You can use most of Maple commands

If you set the plot option adaptive to false the effect disappers.

For this one no simplified result is returned (Maple has no answer for that)

For that one the calculator returns

If you want the later one make sure (with the arrow up button) that the cursor is still in the exponent before you type -1.

I am using here Maple but have tested it also with the calculator.

to avoid complex explanations with branched solutions.

In the real domain with

plots:-inequal(a < cos(x), x = -6 .. 6, a = -3 .. 3)

solutions are located here:

Applying now arccos to both sides of the relation and flipping < to > because of the negative slope of arccos (and inverting the axes):

plots:-inequal(arccos(cos(x)) < arccos(a), a = -3 .. 3, x = -6 .. 6)

gives a better view on all solutions for a given a. The simple solution you have derived by hand looks probably something like this

map(arccos, cos(x) < a);
simplify(%, symbolic);

plots:-inequal(x < arccos(a), a = -3 .. 3, x = -6 .. 6)

This depicts the problem with your apparently simple relation to solve: You have to restrict this not only to a but also to x.

plots:-inequal(abs(x) < arccos(a), a = -3 .. 3, x = -6 .. 6)

The plotted solutions above do not reflect the periodicy of all solutions. I think that's the reason why you got the message about potentially lost solutions. Why Maple does not provide at least one of these two solutions

solve(abs(x) < arccos(a), x)

is up to someone else to explain

before fsolve you do

W := unapply(W(Y), Y)

With 2023 I get

Maple can formally differentiate W but not evaluate the result at 0

Do you really want to "make functions" with unapply that way?

Unfortunately, the 3d workspace is not working well with newer features and functionalities (like the CAD toolbox in your case).

A workaround, that hopefully will not become good practice, is to copy the content of the subsystem and paste it to the main subsystem canvas. The subsystem from the CAD toolbox can be binned or later, after finished assembly, replace the pasted components.

@ Maplesoft developers: Shouldn’t the subsystem ports not be outboard frames (i.e. in white and not in grey)

@Maplesoft management: Please provide resources to update the 3D workspace. In its current state it really makes a bad impression on MapleSim. If it works the way as intended, it is very useful for easy model assembly and inspection.

mine1-5.msim

I do not know if this is programmatically possible (in a reasonable way):

You could use the kernel option cpulimit to terminate an instance of Mapleserver.exe that was started by a batch job. The batch job is processing a batch of mws files (like the attached) each containing a different expression to integrate and a call to kernelopts. keneropts,cpulimit is predictable to what I have seen but kills everything.

That would be a brute Roundup method not taking care “to abort safely” as stated on the timelimit help page.

If this would be possible with a proc statement you could even do the batch processing with Maple.

You clould use alias this way

indets(f__4, 'specfunc(RootOf)');
alias(seq(r || i = %[i], i = 1 .. nops(%)));
f__4;

to compact further [edit:] for better readabilty

It's always good to post an example. Maybe this could work for you

expr := sin(x) + ln(x);
series(expr, x = 0);
convert(%, polynom);

Update:

I think what you want to achieve is not exactly possible.

Here it is stated that a logaritmic function is a transcendental function and further:

a transcendental function is an analytic function that does not satisfy a polynomial equation