ACCEPTED SOLUTION
Accepted Solutions
@LucMeekes
yes i think that is what i need. I added my Mathcad file but there is a small problem so far. I didnt get the failure.
The excel file shows the result of every loadstep. I think it is what i need.
Hmm lazyness yes maybe 
But it has certain reasons: I have very long formulas with many indizes. It is very confusing when i have more indizes than i need
When im finished with my project im gonna post it here so you can see what i need hehe
So maybe the following is what you are looking for.
In most cases its better to write the function to work with scalars and then call that function vectorized with a vector as argument.
If you insist on a pure 3 x 3 result matrix, you can turn "Tabelle" in that kind of matrix the following way:
WE
There are two errors.
The return value in the last line is a 1 x 3 matrix
Somehow you managed to make Mathcad think, the the absolute value should be a matrix determinant - thats the reason for the error message which tells you that Mathcad had expected a matrix of scalars.
You can change the meaning of those vertical bars via right click menu in "absolute Value":
Same error BTW in the first routine, too.
Attached the working sheet.
WE
An additional remark. I think Richard once asked (in another thread) if a solve block wouldn't do the job better than an iteration.
This is an example of what he meant:
You won't get the number of iterations necessary and you can't control the precision the way you do it in a self-made routine, but you sure get high precision correct results.
Here is Herons method of calculating the square root of a number implemented in a similar way (here the parameter matters and influences the result)
WE
yes for sure thats what i was looking fore.
I need to use it in my work. But the Legal Law i should use has hundreds of sites to convert to mathcad so it is going to take longer
OK, as I don't like the way you use your vectors directly in your calculation routine - here is a solution using a solve block.
Its always better to set up all calculation (no matter if iterations, programs, solve blocks, ..) to work for single scalar arguments and and only later call them vectorized with your vector arguments to get the results for a bunch of values with one call.
As the equation a.m=d.m1 can easily be solve symbolically, I also attached a function for direct calculation.
WE
> The problem is that i have more than 20 input variables. This is only the beginning of the iteration (see my postet files)
I see, but nevertheless I guess its better to create functions depending on 20 arguments and call them later vectorized than to deal with the vectors from the very beginning.
This has nothing to do with the question if a solve block could do the job better or not.
Working with named functions is one of the benefits of Mathcad once you have accustomed yourself to them.
The problem in your file is here:
And isn't a minus sign missing here in front or something else? Your condition as its written means asking if A.m1[s equals 1/3 a[2
