Ahhh yes... the old quote, colon, dash, variable name, close quote trick.  I should have known!  Thanks.  That did the trick

Seriously, where would I have read that?  I've been working my way through the Users manual, a chapter a day, and don't recall seeing that after 4-5 chapters, including the one that mentioned assumptions.  I feel like I've walked in in the middle of a movie where everybody else has been using Maple for years, back since version 0.03 when they had to enter their code in binary, and I'm starting by entering my code in a WYSIWYG GUI.  I feel like I'm missing some basic understanding of what's going on (things like the scoping rules -- not things like the symbolic math -- that I understand, or at least appreciate!).  Ahh well, there's nothing like experience for one to gain experience.

Thank you again.  I now have a pretty picture in my document and am ready to tackle the next hurdle... if only I could remember what that was :-)

--wpd

Ahhh yes... the old quote, colon, dash, variable name, close quote trick.  I should have known!  Thanks.  That did the trick

Seriously, where would I have read that?  I've been working my way through the Users manual, a chapter a day, and don't recall seeing that after 4-5 chapters, including the one that mentioned assumptions.  I feel like I've walked in in the middle of a movie where everybody else has been using Maple for years, back since version 0.03 when they had to enter their code in binary, and I'm starting by entering my code in a WYSIWYG GUI.  I feel like I'm missing some basic understanding of what's going on (things like the scoping rules -- not things like the symbolic math -- that I understand, or at least appreciate!).  Ahh well, there's nothing like experience for one to gain experience.

Thank you again.  I now have a pretty picture in my document and am ready to tackle the next hurdle... if only I could remember what that was :-)

--wpd

The problem problem with doing it step by step is that I don't have reasonable values for 'a' and 'b' until after I have solved eq1 and eq2 for them.  Oops... I left that step out in my previous post, possibly because they were totally obvious in that simplified example.  In my application, they are not obvious (and there are more than just 2 equasions in 2 unknowns to be solved.)  So I have a step that reads

solve({eq1, eq2}, {a, b})

which gives me the values for 'a' and 'b' that I use in the next step, which is to plot the resulting curve.

Thanks for the tip about Pi.  My first experience with Maple has been with Maple 11, where all I know is Document mode.  I type in "pi", hit control-space and insert the Greek letter for pi into my equasions.  So I haven't gotten in the habit of capitalizing things the way that, I expect, more experienced users have.

--wpd

The problem problem with doing it step by step is that I don't have reasonable values for 'a' and 'b' until after I have solved eq1 and eq2 for them.  Oops... I left that step out in my previous post, possibly because they were totally obvious in that simplified example.  In my application, they are not obvious (and there are more than just 2 equasions in 2 unknowns to be solved.)  So I have a step that reads

solve({eq1, eq2}, {a, b})

which gives me the values for 'a' and 'b' that I use in the next step, which is to plot the resulting curve.

Thanks for the tip about Pi.  My first experience with Maple has been with Maple 11, where all I know is Document mode.  I type in "pi", hit control-space and insert the Greek letter for pi into my equasions.  So I haven't gotten in the habit of capitalizing things the way that, I expect, more experienced users have.

--wpd

Thank you.

It seems clear to me that I have a lot to learn about Maple.  Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge.

--wpd

Thank you.

It seems clear to me that I have a lot to learn about Maple.  Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge.

--wpd

Are there any techniques for minimizing that "bucklement", or are they all doomed to produce the same result?  Can I use Maple to visualize the results?

Are there any techniques for minimizing that "bucklement", or are they all doomed to produce the same result?  Can I use Maple to visualize the results?

Thanks, that matches my intuition, despite all of my attempts to prove it wrong.  If you don't mind my continuing to veer off topic...

If I were to create a 2-D annular ring, with an inner diameter r1, and an outer diameter r2, and I were to place it on a sphere (whose radius is > r1), then it would sit on a "line of latitude" (for lack of a better term), with the ring extending outward parallel to the "equator".  (I am sure that there are more mathematical terms than "line of latitude" and "equator", but these will do for now.)  I can squish the ring down onto the sphere and it will buckle.  I might even be able to come up with some quantitative measure of the "bucklement".

So here's my question... suppose instead of constructing an annular ring, I were to construct some sort of "wavey" cloverleaf type of closed shape on my 2-D plane.  Does the fact that the curvature of the plane is zero while that of the sphere is positive, imply that I will see the same amount of "bucklement"?

Thank you again for your help.

--wpd

Thanks, that matches my intuition, despite all of my attempts to prove it wrong.  If you don't mind my continuing to veer off topic...

If I were to create a 2-D annular ring, with an inner diameter r1, and an outer diameter r2, and I were to place it on a sphere (whose radius is > r1), then it would sit on a "line of latitude" (for lack of a better term), with the ring extending outward parallel to the "equator".  (I am sure that there are more mathematical terms than "line of latitude" and "equator", but these will do for now.)  I can squish the ring down onto the sphere and it will buckle.  I might even be able to come up with some quantitative measure of the "bucklement".

So here's my question... suppose instead of constructing an annular ring, I were to construct some sort of "wavey" cloverleaf type of closed shape on my 2-D plane.  Does the fact that the curvature of the plane is zero while that of the sphere is positive, imply that I will see the same amount of "bucklement"?

Thank you again for your help.

--wpd