| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
OpenOffice.org 3.0 releasedOpenOffice.org 3.0 releasedPosted Oct 14, 2008 2:53 UTC (Tue) by efexis (guest, #26355)In reply to: OpenOffice.org 3.0 released by vivo Parent article: OpenOffice.org 3.0 released
Yes, although I have seen it taught that square metres and metres squared are in fact the same thing, they blatently aren't for values other than zero or one (3 sq metres would be 3 x (1x1m) or 3x1m, and as you say, 3x3m would be 9x(1x1m) or 9 sq metres).
(Log in to post comments)
Units Posted Oct 14, 2008 4:39 UTC (Tue) by butlerm (guest, #13312) [Link]
Standard unit analysis:
(3 meters) * (3 meters)
= (3 * 3) * (meters * meters)
= 9 * (meters^2)
Units continued Posted Oct 14, 2008 4:50 UTC (Tue) by butlerm (guest, #13312) [Link]
Working backwards from the original example:
3 square meters = 3 * (1 meter * 1 meter) = 3 * (meter^2) = 3 "meters squared"
The suggestion that you are supposed to square the coefficient is deeply mistaken. The square in "meters squared" refers to the unit *itself*.
Units continued Posted Oct 16, 2008 12:19 UTC (Thu) by sbakira (subscriber, #5571) [Link]
This is plain non sense.
Multiply a meter value by a meter value and you get square meters.
This indeed has a relation with the operation you did.
I remember back in school having to deal with kg^2.s^2/m^-3.
Look at the MKSA system and the expression of the common units in international units (Ohm for example).
Anyway, you are right for the mix of the units and the values, but making operations values with units change the nature of the object you manipulated. Think of it like an attribute of the value (like in a class).
|
|
||||||||||||