@mmcdara I appreciate the feedback. I will take note to not use 2-D input. Thank you for the feedback!

@Carl Love thank you. This is very helpful. 

@Carl Love, I have used this code that you wrote, and for the most part it works wonderfully. I do, however, have an issue in line 2 (I get an "Error, invalid sequence" message), and I can't seem to figure out what the problem is. 

As for the last line (plotting q(z) vs z), I did give a somewhat simplified function as an example that I wanted to plot. The actual function that I mean to plot is , as well as perhaps some other functions. Can you perhaps guide me in how I would be able to tailor this to whatever needs I have, without needing to ask for advice?

Please see my attached worksheet to see how I approached plotting this. I am not familiar with your way of writing, but I get the just of it (I also notice how nice and compact it is). I just see that I am doing something wrong. This is not supposed to yield a 3D plot, but once I adjust my q(z) in your code, I do get a 3D plot. 

CarlLoveCode.mw

@Carl Love Another very comprehensive answer. Thank you! 

I appreciate the advice on how to do it directly in Maple - I have programmed with Python before, and I have just been picking up the Maple programming skills, so I did not know how to appraoch this. I suspected such a thing might be possible (to save it to Maple directly), but of course I just thought about my method. Thank you for teaching me something new.

@tomleslie Ah, this was the next problem I had been trying to solve. Thanks a lot! I am learning a good deal from you all on this forum.

@tomleslie this is exactly what I needed to do, I just could not figure out how to approach it. It had me scratching my head for so long now. Thank you! I appreciate the comprehensive reply with all of the tips. I did try to use Array() before, but I was not sure how to include it, and just did not manage. I am truly thankful for the help!

@tomleslie Thanks. I did not realise that. Find it here: Solving_GR_f(R)_ne_2.mw

 

@Rouben Rostamian  thank you so much - many of the things you suggested I had done in other attempts but I never did do it in the correct way it seems. Everything worked in the first go with your advice - such a simple solution. 

On point 5: I had been doing other calculations in the same worksheet, which  is why the rest of the with(): was there, but on reflection, just slimming the worksheet down is much better.

I appreciate your input.