unit^unit

[ValeryOchkov]

I know one problem with this

See also Mathcad PM (Prime Minister)

One semisolution

Mathcad 15

Mathcad Prime

[AlvaroDíaz]

Just for meters, and probably for others. What do you have in mind with that, Valery? Which physical significance is, as LucMeekes ask?

Best regards.

Alvaro.

[LucMeekes]

Simply because it treats m as an undefined symbol. I can do the same in Mathcad 11:

Please give a physical or mathematical example where it is necessary to have an exponent that carries a unit (is not unitless).

Luc

[ValeryOchkov]

LucMeekes написал(а):

Please give a physical or mathematical example where it is necessary to have an exponent that carries a unit (is not unitless).

Luc

Sorry, later!

I must now go...

[ViktorKorobov]

Units^Units = Nonsense = No Physical Sense.

[Werner_E]

Exponents have to be unitless, like the argument of a logarithm function, e.g.

So Mathcad 11 and also Mathcad 15 and even Prime are right. Primes error message is less meaningful, though.

[Fred_Kohlhepp]

If you chase down thru and find Val's sheet, there's a cute little expression near the top

m := 1

He's not raising units to units, he's raising 1 to the first power.

[Werner_E]

Fred Kohlhepp wrote:

If you chase down thru and find Val's sheet, there's a cute little expression near the top

m := 1

He's not raising units to units, he's raising 1 to the first power.

Yes, I noticed that. But he seems to insist that unit^unit should make sense in a math or physical way.