I was not aware of these nifty features, but then again, I've not done much plotting with Maple.

Or shorter (although not quite equivalent because the plot ranges cannot differ):

with(plots):
plot([sin(x),cos(x)],x=0..2*Pi,color=[red,blue]);

I agree with Axel Vogt: Good choice! PS: "Tillykke" is the Danish word for the German word "Glückwunsch". Denmark and Germany share borders, as you may know, which is why the two words are so confusingly similar :-).

I have got no idea as to how a higher rank tensor could look like in some (higher dimensional, probably) space, sorry. But, I wonder, would it at all clarify matters or just clutter them up? I agree with Axel Vogt that the description on wikipedia is quite nice, especially if one follows around all the links on the different subjects of tensors. I have not made any detailed reading, though, so I've got no clues as to whether it offers what you seek.

I have got no idea as to how a higher rank tensor could look like in some (higher dimensional, probably) space, sorry. But, I wonder, would it at all clarify matters or just clutter them up? I agree with Axel Vogt that the description on wikipedia is quite nice, especially if one follows around all the links on the different subjects of tensors. I have not made any detailed reading, though, so I've got no clues as to whether it offers what you seek.

Before getting on with my real posting, I wonder what might ultimately happen with these repeatedly nested replies, each being indented relatively to the preceding one. Have anybody nested themselves so deeply that they know the answer to that? Anyway, I dare to take one more step into the abyss of recursion. Thanks for the quite innovative suggestion on using caramel in coffee, but, I wonder, can caramel at all be properly dissolved in coffee? Or maybe you didn't mean caramel in the coffee, but with the coffee!? Maybe in order to stand any chance of sorting out these quite subtle issues it's time for me to make a cup of coffee. Unfortunately, I've got no caramel. Sorry, I'm being lead astray. When you say 'mechanical way of picturing', what precisely do you mean? Maybe I'm so used to doing tensor calculus in general relativity that I never really think about these matters? For me tensors are just some multi-dimensional arrays with certain properties which I manipulate accordingly. That's also the way I've implemented tensors in my package Gravitation (sorry for that advertisement, but I couldn't resist).

Before getting on with my real posting, I wonder what might ultimately happen with these repeatedly nested replies, each being indented relatively to the preceding one. Have anybody nested themselves so deeply that they know the answer to that? Anyway, I dare to take one more step into the abyss of recursion. Thanks for the quite innovative suggestion on using caramel in coffee, but, I wonder, can caramel at all be properly dissolved in coffee? Or maybe you didn't mean caramel in the coffee, but with the coffee!? Maybe in order to stand any chance of sorting out these quite subtle issues it's time for me to make a cup of coffee. Unfortunately, I've got no caramel. Sorry, I'm being lead astray. When you say 'mechanical way of picturing', what precisely do you mean? Maybe I'm so used to doing tensor calculus in general relativity that I never really think about these matters? For me tensors are just some multi-dimensional arrays with certain properties which I manipulate accordingly. That's also the way I've implemented tensors in my package Gravitation (sorry for that advertisement, but I couldn't resist).

Actually, as I wrote my post to you I wondered how you had been able to get hold of the book so fast, but I remember thinking that you had found it in some university library. Maybe these hypothetical considerations of mine should have been instead a warning sign to me to go and make some coffee :-).

Actually, as I wrote my post to you I wondered how you had been able to get hold of the book so fast, but I remember thinking that you had found it in some university library. Maybe these hypothetical considerations of mine should have been instead a warning sign to me to go and make some coffee :-).

I think you are quite right arguing that the tension is not really between mathematicians and physicists, although it often arises there, but between rigor and intuition. Actually, the latter is exactly what is argued in the New Scientist article. Fundamentally, I also agree with you (otherwise I would be a poor theoretical physicist) that rigor is essential in the pursuit of reliability. I was not aware of the example from the theory of superconductivity. Thanks for that sobering example.

I think you are quite right arguing that the tension is not really between mathematicians and physicists, although it often arises there, but between rigor and intuition. Actually, the latter is exactly what is argued in the New Scientist article. Fundamentally, I also agree with you (otherwise I would be a poor theoretical physicist) that rigor is essential in the pursuit of reliability. I was not aware of the example from the theory of superconductivity. Thanks for that sobering example.

Even though you post is not indented relatively to my post, I assume that it is a reply to mine, primarily because you mention the distinction between maths and physics in regard to some book, which I assume is the book mentioned by me. You are quite right, of course. After posting I wondered if the book, or my post itself for that matter, was too 'physicist-like'. I know the problem from the physicists point of view. As a theoretical physicist, I quite often feel the need for getting acquainted with some more powerful mathematical tools, but most often to no awail; almost immediately upon having opened some potentially promosing math book in the math library I'm lost in also those -phisms, spaces, etc. Generally speaking, I assume, a physicist finds a mathematician overly concerned with details (but he has to be meticulous, of course), whereas, I assume, a mathematician finds a physicist overly sloppy with the details. No doubt, however, the interaction between the two fields, if and when it works, can be really fertile to both fields; just think of string/M-theory (Witten et al). Coming to think of it, the article "Less proof, more truth" by Gregory Chaitin in New Scientist 28 July 2007, in which he reviews the book "How mathematicians think" by William Byers, seems relevant here. But, then again, being a physicist my point of view may be askewed towards a general predilection for formalistic sloppiness.

Even though you post is not indented relatively to my post, I assume that it is a reply to mine, primarily because you mention the distinction between maths and physics in regard to some book, which I assume is the book mentioned by me. You are quite right, of course. After posting I wondered if the book, or my post itself for that matter, was too 'physicist-like'. I know the problem from the physicists point of view. As a theoretical physicist, I quite often feel the need for getting acquainted with some more powerful mathematical tools, but most often to no awail; almost immediately upon having opened some potentially promosing math book in the math library I'm lost in also those -phisms, spaces, etc. Generally speaking, I assume, a physicist finds a mathematician overly concerned with details (but he has to be meticulous, of course), whereas, I assume, a mathematician finds a physicist overly sloppy with the details. No doubt, however, the interaction between the two fields, if and when it works, can be really fertile to both fields; just think of string/M-theory (Witten et al). Coming to think of it, the article "Less proof, more truth" by Gregory Chaitin in New Scientist 28 July 2007, in which he reviews the book "How mathematicians think" by William Byers, seems relevant here. But, then again, being a physicist my point of view may be askewed towards a general predilection for formalistic sloppiness.

Please forgive my directness, but I don't feel like reporting it for the third time, even though it might be directed more appropiately this time. Instead I kindly refer to thread1 and thread2 where the problem has also been reported.

I think your statements are completely correct. Recently I wondered if this forum could be used to accumulate all bugs and nuisances of the product at one single place. As it is now they are scattered all over the forum, in all the different threads. I think someone else recently has suggested something similar. It would be nice to have one single place where to look up, or report (if one thinks it is so), a bug, or some usability issues (like the tabbing nuisance, I've reported elsewhere). This one single place could also serve to put pressure on MapleSoft to fix these issues: this, of course, is probably the reason why no such platform is provided by MapleSoft itself. Coming from Maple 9.5, where all my private packages have been written using tab indentation, the erratic formatting behaviour of Maple 11 has frustrated me to the point where I thought about demanding back my money for the upgrade, because the nuisance disrupts my research activity. Even though I've twice reported this tabbing problem directly to MapleSoft I've received no answers at all. I think that is bad customer service. What do you think?