so after the data has been read in

I think I need to convert each line into a sequence, get rid of the square brackets

so for line 1 I would use  b[1]:=seq(op(i,op(1,a)),i=1..nops(op(1,a)))  I would swear there is an simpler identical operation for that

then after removing the W use seq(parse(b[i]),i=1..nops(op(1,a))) to convert to values I can manipulate or plot.

Okay, sed, that's a nice little prog.  How would I do it entirely with Maple
I'm guessing something like

a:=readdata(`f:/testdata.txt`,string,16)

then use StringTools[Remove] but I get the error second argument must be a string.

Value is undetermined outside of y or n. 

color bar in the legend? 

Similar to these links?

http://www.mapleprimes.com/forum/pdeproblemfinitedifferencemethodheattransfer

http://www.mapleprimes.com/forum/density-plot-with-color-gradient-and-corresponding-legend-with-maple-9

One more way.  From the menu  Insert -> Maple input or CRTL-m will allow 1d math input.  But it is for each line you wish to enter, you have to repeatedly crtl-m after each enter for 1d math. 

Am I correct to say that everyone else just changes the tools->options->display->Maple input  ... to Maple Notation in document mode to get 1d math?  By doing that or by doing as EXACTLY as Doug has mentioned my input is still aⁿ not a^n  and also

a
--     and not  a / b
b


It must be a bug. 
 

Just found out the only way in document mode to get 1-d input to work is if you click on the tab [> (insert maple input after current execution group) button.  This way as you type, you can type as 1d math.

The only other way is to type it out in 2d and right click and then convert to 1-D math input works also. 

Aside from using the [> button, I cannot enter 1d math. 

Okay, I have been unable to get 1d-math notation to work in document mode in Maple 12.01 and Maple 13.2

It seems to only work in worksheet mode.  I use the apply to session and it will work after one command has taken place in worksheet mode only. 

If I switch to document mode, no matter what I do, setting input display does not use 1-d math.  It's stuck in 2-d math.

Okay, I open a new maple document ... leave everything as is ... go to tools-> options -> display and change to input display to maple Notation then press apply globally.  The Math box is highlighted and the paragraph style shows C 2D Math.  When I type it's in 2D math notation.  I'll have to try this on another computer, I can't see what I'm doing wrong or missing, so maybe there's a problem or conflict with the software on my end.

Okay I tried that but it didn't work.

I changed the input display to maple notation and also the paragraph style to Maple Input.  It did not work, I'm still getting 2d math display. 

I changed the output display to maple notation and that part works but the input display is not.

Yeah maybe too many numbers.  What would I want to do with it anyways?  It could have some cryptographic purposes.  What was my motivation?  Just for fun.  See if a 32 bit system could calculate numbers it wouldn't normally be able to.

All I was wondering about was getting an answer that is returnable from Maple.  Of course supposing, just supposing, I wanted to find the next 20 digits after the 77th position of the answer calculated by

2^123456789876543212345678987654321 * 2^123456789876543212345678987654321

I couldn't, since maple returns the overflow error.  I don't even think a 64 bit machine could calculate that number.  However that little trick would at least get maple to spit out a simplified base 2 to a known power.

2^{246913579753086424691357975308642}

We still wouldn't be able to find the 20 digits I was seeking, at least until we got more powerful computers.  Maybe some algortihm exists to extract such a thing?   I don't know.  No real point in actually needing such a number, just for fun I was seeing if it could be done.

Can you, or someone, show some tricks to get maple to display very large numbers for a 32 bit machine or even 64 bit for that matter?

For example I am wondering why maple doesn't use the property of same bases to simplify very large numbers. 
a^b * a^c = a^b+c

2^12345678987*2^12345678987
Error, numeric exception: overflow

We have to create a little procedure to take care of such things.  For example

large := proc (a, b, c, d)
  local exponent, symbol;
  if a = c then
    exponent := b+d:
    symbol := convert(exponent, symbol):
    a^symbol:
  else print(a^convert(b, symbol)+c^convert(d, symbol));
end if;
end proc;

large(2,12345678987,2,12345678987)

             2^24691357974

This way at least we get a simplified answer.  Maple doesn't need to evaluate it but it could carry through and simplify it.  Are there any other rules in which we could apply in the same manner to weed out an answer?  Scientific notation is always good at providing us with a few digits to some extremely large exponent.  Any other ideas?

Maple 12 on a 32bit machine both classic and standard GUI gives me float(infinity).

Does it work in Maple 13 on a 32 bit machine?  What if you increase the size of the exponent, do you get to a point where Maple can only return float(infinity)?

There is a maximum integer for maple.

kernelopts(maxdigits);   #maximum number of digits

         268435448

Your value has exceeded that.  That was for 32 bit machince, it will be higher for a 64 bit machine.

Corrupted yes probably so maybe Maple can't open it but what about using Microsoft Word?

Most of it will be garbage(encoded), lines encapsulated by equation or plot. 

Perhaps all the corrupted worksheet is missing, is the opening box worksheet and closing box worksheet commands?  Maybe try copying one over from a known good worksheet and see what happens.  I've never tried it and this is out on a limb but it might work enough to get you going.

 Just a thought

Aside from putting the # sign in front of every line in a section there doesn't appear to be a simple way.

Sometimes it would be nice to comment out only a portion in the middle of a single line and the only way I could figure out to do that was to use the single backquote.  Not the best way obviously since it turns them into strings and prints them out.