Christopher2222,

I found it at C:Users\....\Maple 13\lib\maple.init after searching over 75,000 files for the text "imaginaryunit".  When I removed that command, then "I" became the orthogonal operator.  Thanks to everyone for the help.  I think I will make up a starting template of what I want, and "save as" to the file name when I finish the worksheet.

Ratch

Christopher2222,

There is only one maple13.ini file in my AppData file of the Users directory of Windows Vista.  It has lots of interesting entries, but no interface(imaginaryunit=j) line in it.

Ratch

Christopher2222,

There is only one maple13.ini file in my AppData file of the Users directory of Windows Vista.  It has lots of interesting entries, but no interface(imaginaryunit=j) line in it.

Ratch

PatrickT,

My worksheet is a blank.  When I type in ?startupcode, it switches to the startupcode editor screen.  When I exit that screen it returns to my previous blank workwheet.  While in the editor screen, I do not see the command interface(imaginaryunit=j), yet I know it is somewhere because "j" is in effect for every new worksheet I make.

Ratch

PatrickT,

My worksheet is a blank.  When I type in ?startupcode, it switches to the startupcode editor screen.  When I exit that screen it returns to my previous blank workwheet.  While in the editor screen, I do not see the command interface(imaginaryunit=j), yet I know it is somewhere because "j" is in effect for every new worksheet I make.

Ratch

PatrickT,

No, I am referring to ?startupcode.

PatrickT,

No, I am referring to ?startupcode.

Thanks, I needed that.  Much appreciated.  Ratch

Thanks, I needed that.  Much appreciated.  Ratch

Acer,

I am using Maple 13.02, build 436951 on 32-bit Vista.  I made the last attachment with only the keyboard, not palettes.

Axel Vogt,

I don't like 1D math or the classical interface because it looks ugly and does not support atomic subscripts.

Alejandro Jakubi,

Yes, 2D seems to hide a lot of things.  I cannot determine why some entries go nuclear on me (atomic) and other don't.  See below.

To all,

I think I have a work around.  I select and copy the expression that is giving me grief to a open spot on the worksheet.  Then I do a left mouse click and convert it to 1D.  If it shows items like "#mfrac" and "linethickness", then I know that the expression is hosed up, and I need to reenter it again.

Ratch

Acer,

I am using Maple 13.02, build 436951 on 32-bit Vista.  I made the last attachment with only the keyboard, not palettes.

Axel Vogt,

I don't like 1D math or the classical interface because it looks ugly and does not support atomic subscripts.

Alejandro Jakubi,

Yes, 2D seems to hide a lot of things.  I cannot determine why some entries go nuclear on me (atomic) and other don't.  See below.

To all,

I think I have a work around.  I select and copy the expression that is giving me grief to a open spot on the worksheet.  Then I do a left mouse click and convert it to 1D.  If it shows items like "#mfrac" and "linethickness", then I know that the expression is hosed up, and I need to reenter it again.

Ratch

Alex Vogt,

I entered an example in the attachment.  In first case, the simplification is complete.  In the second case the simplification is incomplete.  Why is that so?  Uploading is not the problem, the 2D simplification is.  Ratch

Alex Vogt,

I entered an example in the attachment.  In first case, the simplification is complete.  In the second case the simplification is incomplete.  Why is that so?  Uploading is not the problem, the 2D simplification is.  Ratch

Simplify_Problem.mw

Pagan,

I don't know how the whole term got to be atomic.  I certainly did not enter it that way.  I entered it mostly the way you suggested.  It works, too, if the expression is not too complicated.

So let's eliminate the j operator, all the subscripts, and use a minimalist expression.  Notice in the attachment that the result from lower case variables is a good simplification, but the result using upper case variables is not.

Ratch

Simplify_Problem.mw

Pagan,

I don't know how the whole term got to be atomic.  I certainly did not enter it that way.  I entered it mostly the way you suggested.  It works, too, if the expression is not too complicated.

So let's eliminate the j operator, all the subscripts, and use a minimalist expression.  Notice in the attachment that the result from lower case variables is a good simplification, but the result using upper case variables is not.

Ratch