Community Tip - You can subscribe to a forum, label or individual post and receive email notifications when someone posts a new topic or reply. Learn more! X
Hi all
I am doing a calculation of RLC circuit in MathCAD, but I am facing to a problem with usage of "i" ( notation of complex number) as shown bellow:
Please help me to treat this .
Best regards,
Hi. In Mathcad imaginary unit is 1i or 1j, but shows just i or j.
Best regards.
Alvaro.
Mathcad Prime - new in complex number formatting
I have seen a lot of Mathcad-sheets with:
See please - with units
Works for me if I define j as the square root of -1
@W3EO wrote:
Works for me if I define j as the square root of -1
In real Mathcad (=MC15 and below) I would strongly advise against doing so, but in Prime I have to admit that the imaginary unit displayed as 1j or 1i simply looks too ugly and so I understand that defining j:=1i or something like that makes sense.
Yes, in "Real" Mathcad 🙂 I'll never assimilate the Primes. I have always defined the imaginary constant explicitly, as it gives me the confidence that I'm using the values I want. Why do you think this is bad practice?
You may run into troubles with symbolics not understanding your definition of the imaginary unit...?
Luc
@aroberts wrote:
Yes, in "Real" Mathcad 🙂 I'll never assimilate the Primes. I have always defined the imaginary constant explicitly, as it gives me the confidence that I'm using the values I want. Why do you think this is bad practice?
First of all: Why define a constant which is already predefined in the software?
And then: From a mathematical point of view its simply wrong to say that i=sqrt(-1). You may run into severe troubles if you do so. But its OK to say that i^2=-1. i is one of the two solutions of the equation z^2+1=0 and it does not matter at all which of the two.
You may want to have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_unit#Definition and the next two chapters there.
BTW, Wolfram as so often disagrees with mathematical conventions and definitions and thinks its OK to define i=sqrt(-1) -> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ImaginaryUnit.html
So its up to you if you want trust Wolfram or trust Math 😉
The definition of i was seen quite controversy as long as I can remember and you sure may look at it as some purely academic squabble. You may be interested in discussions on stackexchange
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/887724/refining-my-knowledge-of-the-imaginary-number
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1387820/a-proper-definition-of-i-the-imaginary-unit