My question is if there is a good way to use MuPAD functions in a Matlab script. The background is that I have a problem where I need to find all solutions to a set of non-linear equations. The previous solution was to use solve in Matlab, which works for some of my simulations (i.e., some of the sets of input T) but not always. So instead I'm using MuPAD in the following way:

function ut1 = testMupadSolver(T)
% # Input T should be a vector of 15 elements

mupadCommand = ['numeric::polysysroots({' eq1(T) ' = 0,' ...
    eq2(T) '= 0},[u, v])'];
allSolutions = evalin(symengine, mupadCommand);
ut1 = allSolutions;

end

function strEq = eq1(T)
sT = @(x) ['(' num2str(T(x)) ')'];

strEq = [ '-' sT(13) '*u^4 + (4*' sT(15) '-2*' sT(10) '-' sT(11) '*v)*u^3 + (3*' ...
    sT(13) '-3*' sT(6) '+v*(3*' sT(14) '-2*' sT(7) ')-' sT(8) '*v^2)*u^2 + (2*' ...
    sT(10) '-4*' sT(1) '+v*(2*' sT(11) '-3*' sT(2) ')+v^2*(2*' sT(12) ' - 2*' ...
    sT(3) ')-' sT(4) '*v^3)*u + v*(' sT(7) '+' sT(8) '*v+' sT(9) '*v^2)+' sT(6)];

end

function strEq = eq2(T)
sT = @(x) ['(' num2str(T(x)) ')'];
strEq = ['(' sT(14) '-' sT(13) '*v)*u^3 + u^2*' '(' sT(11) '+(2*' sT(12) '-2*' sT(10) ...
    ')*v-' sT(11) '*v^2) + u*(' sT(7) '+v*(2*' sT(8) '-3*' sT(6) ')+v^2*(3*' sT(9) ...
    '-2*' sT(7) ') - ' sT(8) '*v^3) + v*(2*' sT(3) '-4*' sT(1) '+v*(3*' sT(4) ...
    '-3*' sT(2) ')+v^2*(4*' sT(5) ' - 2*' sT(3) ')-' sT(4) '*v^3)+' sT(2)];

end

I have two queries:

1) In order to use MuPAD I need to rewrite my two equations for the equation-system as strings, as you can see above. Is there a better way to do this, preferably without the string step?

2) And regarding the format output; when

T = [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1];

the output is:

testMupadSolver(T)

ans =

matrix([[u], [v]]) in {matrix([[4.4780323328249527319374854327354], [0.21316518769990291263811232040432]]), matrix([[- 0.31088044854742790561428736573347 - 0.67937835289645431373983117422178*i], [1.1103383836576028262792542770062 + 0.39498445715599777249947213893789*i]]), matrix([[- 0.31088044854742790561428736573347 + 0.67937835289645431373983117422178*i], [1.1103383836576028262792542770062 - 0.39498445715599777249947213893789*i]]), matrix([[0.47897094942962218512261248590261], [-1.26776233072168360314707025141]]), matrix([[-0.83524238515971910583152318717102], [-0.66607962429342496204955062300669]])} union solvelib::VectorImageSet(matrix([[0], [z]]), z, C_)

Can MuPAD give the solutions as a set of vectors or similarly? In order to use the answer above I need to sort out the solutions from that string-set of solutions. Is there a clever way to do this? My solution so far is to find the signs I know will be present in the solution, such as '([[' and pick the numbers following, which is really ugly, and if the solution for some reason looks a little bit different than the cases I've covered it doesn't work.

EDIT

When I'm using the solution suggested in the answer below by @horchler, I get the same solution as with my previous implementation. But for some cases (not all) it takes much longer time. Eg. for the T below the solution suggested below takes more than a minute whilst using evalin (my previous implementation) takes one second.

T = [2.4336 1.4309 0.5471 0.0934 9.5838 -0.1013 -0.2573 2.4830 ...
     36.5464 0.4898 -0.5383 61.5723 1.7637 36.0816 11.8262]

The new function:

function ut1 = testMupadSolver(T)
% # Input T should be a vector of 15 elements
allSolutions = feval(symengine,'numeric::polysysroots', ...
    [eq1(T),eq2(T)],'[u,v]');
end
function eq = eq1(T)
syms u v
eq = -T(13)*u^4 + (4*T(15) - 2*T(10) - T(11)*v)*u^3 + (3*T(13) - 3*T(6) ...
    + v*(3*T(14) -2*T(7)) - T(8)*v^2)*u^2 + (2*T(10) - 4*T(1) + v*(2*T(11) ...
    - 3*T(2)) + v^2*(2*T(12) - 2*T(3)) - T(4)*v^3)*u + v*(T(7) + T(8)*v ...
    + T(9)*v^2) + T(6);
end


function eq = eq2(T)
syms u v
eq = (T(14) - T(13)*v)*u^3 + u^2*(T(11) + (2*T(12) - 2*T(10))*v ...
    - T(11)*v^2) + u*(T(7) + v*(2*T(8) - 3*T(6) ) + v^2*(3*T(9) - 2*T(7)) ...
    - T(8)*v^3) + v*(2*T(3) - 4*T(1) + v*(3*T(4) - 3*T(2)) + v^2*(4*T(5) ...
    - 2*T(3)) - T(4)*v^3) + T(2);
end

Is there a good reason to why it takes so much longer time?