subst | Use regexp | Regex library

In your last goal, you have k0 = k (by H0and H1), and you know T t1 k0 v0 t2 is a search tree.

Great question, unfortunately, I don't see an easy way to do that. Here is a sketch of some ideas; I'll try to come back in the next day or two to fill in the details.

First of all, I thought about replacing if/then/else with unit_step, charfun, or charfun2. However, it looks like simplifications for arithmetic on those expressions (e.g. product of unit_step) isn't implemented, so working with any of those wouldn't be any simpler. But if someone else can see how to do it, please, by all means, show us.

The outline of a way that I see to do this is (1) define rules for arithmetic on if/then/else, and (2) define rules for flattening nested if/then/else. I would use defrule to define the rules, although tellsimpafter is also a possibility.

EDIT: I've put together some code to handle (1) and (2) above. See robert-dodier/simplify_conditionals at: https://github.com/maxima-project-on-github/maxima-packages

Here's the result I get for the problem you mentioned.

I don't understand from your question what command you are actually trying to run, nor do I have or use Windows, however I get the sense that your command is exiting with an error that is upsetting you.

If commandX fails on macOS or Linux, the normal thing to do is run a second command after it that will succeed and so the caller will not get upset. So maybe you can try that technique:

You can use

Not sure what the issue is with inversion, indeed it seems like it has lost track of an important equality. However, using case H instead of inversion H seems to work just fine:

The problem is that your Term type lacks a Show instance, and cannot be shown. The interpreter is telling you that the expression foo yielded a result of type SomeType, but it can't print any more details than that because SomeType does not support Show. Your function has therefore apparently returned some value successfully, but you don't know what value. You could inspect it by pattern-matching on the result. But you probably just want to add deriving Show to the type definition, so that the repl can print the value it got.

Now, the most popular repl, GHCI, doesn't normally behave this way: if you try to show a value without a Show instance, you just get an error. But some other GHCI-like tools do this compromise of printing the expression again and its type. One that I know of is interactive-haskell-mode in Emacs; there may well be others.

In your Makefile make sees that it needs all gv-files (SRC) to make one file: 1.gv (OUT) so in the loop the prerequisite changes $< but not the target $@.
You need to match a pattern and use patsubst instead of subst so OUT is a pattern of files.

I removed most variables for clarity. Feel free to add them back.

Your Makefile defines:

Following Robert Dodier's advice, I broke up all the vectors and solved for P[1] and P[2] individually. I've got something that gives me an answer but now how can I get it into nice vector form? Here it is: