Just ... wow. Well, thank you for giving me another reason not to use MapleTA.

For a somewhat detailed treatise on the world of ambiguous mathematical statements, please read The Foundations of Differential Geometry by Kobayashi and Nomizu. That comment aside, Kobayashi and Nomizu's work (as well as most mathematical statements, such as the ones you pointed out) are only ambiguous when taken out of context. It is context that makes sense out of similar mathematical statement. The statements f(x+y) and x(y+z) are ambiguous until I state (explicitly or implicitly) that f is a function (of one variable), and x, y, and z are all constants (elements of the same ring, where the operation of "multiplication" is written as juxtaposition of elements). If a user were able to explicitly put such context into a Maple worksheet in a visible and executable manner (I do not believe that the assume() command has enough power to support all of this), then there wouldn't be any problem. I, for one, do not like the Maple choice. I seek unambiguous notation.

Unfortunately, it appears that you have not misunderstood what is happening. This only goes to strengthening my belief in the idea that the Typesetting package has not improved Maple in any way.

It seems that DEplot() has no problems when plotting diff(y(x),x) = 8*x^n*y(x) over the ranges x=-5..5, y=-5..5 when n = 1 or n is even. When n is odd and > 1, Maple 11 stalls (at the point I mentioned in my original post). This stall can be averted by changing the constant multiple (e.g. diff(y(x),x) = ((x^9)/10000)*y(x) will plot in that window).

If you look at the XML code of the .mw file, you'll notice that without the Typesetting[Settings](numberfunctions=true); option set, 2(x+y) is stored as "`*`(2, `+`(x, y))" , and with that setting active, it is stored as "(2)(`+`(x, y))". Another interesting note: The expression 15(7+6) was stored as "`+`(`*`(15, `*`(`+`(7, 6))));". There seems to be an unnecessary `+` added into the expression.

I don't normally bother to peer inside of functions like that. It doesn't terribly surprise me, though, to find out that Maple has two forms of XML with which it wrangles, vis-a-vis my post here. Perhaps I should rigorously go through the Worksheet and XMLTools packages to see where the Simple- and NSXML code branches lay... Please remind me that my ideas of rewriting the Typesetting, Worksheet, and XMLTools packages are simply delusions of grandeur.

It's been almost a full year since this post, and still no one has responded; therefore, I'm bumping it. The bug is still there. XMLTools:-Replacechild([1,1]="foo",doc); does not work, whereas subsop([1,1]="foo",doc); does work. (doc is an XML tree that has already been created). Now, if I'm wrong and this isn't a bug, please let me know.

In this case, I believe that the two are one and the same, or at least very closely related. We have a fraction which has a radical in the numerator, and inside that radical is an expression (x^2) that also appears in the denominator. The approach would be to attempt to remove the radical as "cleanly" as possible (by doing what I said in my previous post).

In this case, I believe that the two are one and the same, or at least very closely related. We have a fraction which has a radical in the numerator, and inside that radical is an expression (x^2) that also appears in the denominator. The approach would be to attempt to remove the radical as "cleanly" as possible (by doing what I said in my previous post).

Multiply by one. Or, in this case, (sqrt(x^2+9)+3)/(sqrt(x^2+9)+3)

Multiply by one. Or, in this case, (sqrt(x^2+9)+3)/(sqrt(x^2+9)+3)

I'd love it. Then again, there are down sides to it. First, there comes the question of why and where we are typesetting this information in the first place? I'm trying to do it automatically in command line inside of worksheets that I generate from scratch. If someone else wants to just make a worksheet with examples, isn't that the purpose of Maple's document mode and/or 2D input? If we wanted to have LaTeX markup capabilities with Maple's functionality (i.e. entering $2(x+y)$; on one line, and then say entering, say, eval(%, {x=4,y=7}); on the next), then I imagine there would have to be a drastic overhaul of Maple's parser. So, I guess my question is: In what way(s) or situation(s) is everyone looking to typeset in Maple?

From what I've seen, the capabilities of the Typesetting Assistant are nowhere close to being able to handle even the simplest tasks that these users (and that I) wish to accomplish. From what I can surmise, the Typesetting Assistant controls the gross format of the output, and does not offer a fine control execution or simplification rules [on a case-by-case basis.] I'd propose that it's almost pointless to even include this Typesetting Assistant in Maple when its functionality is so limited. Pardon, but I cannot spit enough vitriol about the Typesetting package. It's been nothing but a roadblock and a headache.

There is no documentation. The Typesetting package (which is where these typesetting comands reside) is a deplorable package that has raised my ire ever since its introduction in Maple 10. Maple doesn't seem to want users using the Typesetting package beyond the interactive Typesetting Rules commands they have documented in the help files. What is perhaps the most infuriating thing about the invisibile typesetting (most users will never realize that there is a Typesetting package marking things up using MathML) is that, vis-a-vis this post, there appears to be a Typesetting parser in the kernel; that is to say, it appears that the kernel does, in some way, know how to handle the Typesetting commands and/or MathML markup. As far as a command through which one could pass a statement and have it typeset as-is, I doubt one exists. :(

Smileys are our friends ^_^ As for editing posts ... one seems to be capapble of comments (and possibly posts) only if no one has responded to them. There is a link labeled "edit" next to "reply."