cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - Learn all about the Community Ranking System, a fun gamification element of the PTC Community. X

Find of solve block

nchater
1-Visitor

Find of solve block

Hello everyone,

I am working with Mathcad Prime 3.1, and I use the solve block.

The problem is with the function find:  I want to specify directly (like in Mathcad 15 with the index) the element that should be reported. I don't want to report all the matrix and I don't want neither to use an extra variable to report the specified element of the resultant matrix.

Thanks for your support,

Best regards,

Nadia

ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Nadia;

The attached file was created in Prime 3.0.

Please open it in Prime 3.1, and post a screen shot of the result.

View solution in original post

15 REPLIES 15
LucMeekes
23-Emerald III
(To:nchater)

1st. Can you post the worksheet?

2nd. "and I don't want neither to use an extra variable to report the specified element of the resultant matrix" that is fundamentally impossible. If you want part of a matrix, you have to specify which part. That specification implies at least one variable (which might be a constant).

Luc

Hello LucMeekes,

I am referring to this:

The index is used directly in Find function in Mathcad 15. It is not the case in Prime 3.1.

In other terms, I want to do it in the same way than Mathcad 15.

Best regards

Nadia

LucMeekes
23-Emerald III
(To:nchater)

So what is keeping you from typing

    [ORIGIN

at the end of the Find() function, in order to get the first of the list of solutions?

(To get the second of the list of solutions, type [ORIGIN+1 instead.)

Luc

I tried this option and It generated an error.

I hope I was wrong in the way of using it

Thanks

Nadia

LucMeekes
23-Emerald III
(To:nchater)

That is because you are typing

  ,ORIGIN

as yet another parameter of the find function, instead of what I wrote, to type:

  [ORIGIN

at the end, so past the ), of the find function.

Anyway, Fred has given you a file with the expression.

Luc

LucMeekes wrote:

That is because you are typing

  ,ORIGIN

Actually (in Prime) she's typing "Ctrl -" to get a literal subscript rather than a vector index.  You are correct, "[" is still the index subscript she should have used.

RichardJ
19-Tanzanite
(To:nchater)

It's not clear to me what you want. You are finding two unknowns, so the result is a vector with two rows. If you want to display only one of them, just use a vector subscript.

Hello Richard,

I am referring to this:

The index is used directly in Find function in Mathcad 15. It is not the case in Prime 3.1.

In other terms, I want to do it in the same way than Mathcad 15.

Best regards

Nadia

I don't want to use a vector with a subscript because I want to use this variable in the rest of the document and I don't want it to have a subscript, and meanwhile, I don't want to use another variable to define the desired row like shown in the screenshot. I want it to be directly found in the Find() function level.

This works in Prime 3.0:

Unfortunately, The subscript  doesn't work with find function in Mathcad prime 3.1

Nadia;

The attached file was created in Prime 3.0.

Please open it in Prime 3.1, and post a screen shot of the result.

Yes, It works finally.

Thank you so much for your help and patience.

Best regards,

Nadia

Werner_E
25-Diamond I
(To:nchater)

> The index is used directly in Find function in Mathcad 15. It is not the case in Prime 3.1.

> In other terms, I want to do it in the same way than Mathcad 15.

As Fred has shown ist IS working the same way as in Mathcad 15 - at least in Prime 3.

So why do you think that it does not work that way?

You have neither provided a worksheet nor a screenshot of Prime failing using the very same syntax.

The screnshot you provided in your initial post is missing the matrix index 1 and so you get a vector with both values - all as it should be.

Could it be that you failed because you used the wrong type of subscript (literal instead of matrix)?

Werner Exinger wrote:

Could it be that you failed because you used the wrong type of subscript (literal instead of matrix)?

I remember me posting for help because I make this mistake in a worksheet and can't found it by myself.

Alvaro.

Announcements

Top Tags