Rank: Administration Groups: Developers, Registered, Knovel Developers, Administrators, Advanced Member Joined: 11/07/2008(UTC) Posts: 1,616 Was thanked: 1978 time(s) in 666 post(s)
|
Hello! Does anybody can explain the result of this expression in wolfram alpha? Why Amperes are used for both operands in result?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member Groups: Registered
Joined: 18/05/2010(UTC) Posts: 27 Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 6 post(s)
|
The input expression mixes unitless with units: 1(unitless) + 3i(units A) so I guess it corrects this by using Amps throughout in the output. Brian
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered
Joined: 15/04/2012(UTC) Posts: 1,986 Was thanked: 1124 time(s) in 721 post(s)
|
Andrey, please don't adopt any silent correction behaviour for units in SMath. The rejection of expressions with non-matching units is very helpful.
|
|
1 user thanked mkraska for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
Groups: Registered
Joined: 04/07/2015(UTC) Posts: 6,866 Was thanked: 981 time(s) in 809 post(s)
|
Wolfram shows that the complex argument is ill posed if associated with unit. You have it same way in Smath. Jean Andrey Wolfram Alpha.sm (5kb) downloaded 43 time(s).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered
Joined: 15/04/2012(UTC) Posts: 1,986 Was thanked: 1124 time(s) in 721 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Jean Giraud Wolfram shows that the complex argument is ill posed if associated with unit. You have it same way in Smath.
Jean
Neither is the problem ill posed nor is it the same way in SMath. And Wolfram just acts like an over-eager spell-checker with making things worse while trying to make the units match. If you take i as a variable of dimension 1/A then the units would match. Considering the input being wrong (or ill posed) would require - i being strictly reserved for sqrt(-1) (which it is not in SMath) - any variable (like i) being strictly dimensionless (which it is not in SMath) Obviously both assumptions neither apply to Wolfram Alpha. The only similarity in the behaviour between SMath and WA is that both assume i being the imaginary unit. Nothing wrong so far. But is a clear complaint about non-matching units really "the same" as silently messing with the structure of the expression? |
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.