Speed Conversion: MPH to m/s - 15m/h-1

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesBX
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Units
AI Thread Summary
To convert 15 miles per hour (15 m/h) to 15 m h-1, the two expressions represent the same speed but in different notations. There is no actual conversion needed as they are equivalent. The discussion highlights that dividing by a unit is the same as multiplying by its negative exponent, illustrating this with examples like mi/h and ft/s². This mathematical principle clarifies the relationship between different unit expressions. Understanding these notations can simplify speed and acceleration calculations.
JamesBX
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Ok for the life of me i can't remember how you get from say 15 miles per hour (15m/h) to 15mh-1?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Do you mean: 15 m/h to 15 m h-1?

There is no conversion there, it's just a different way to write the same thing. Dividing by the power of a quantity is the same as multiplying by the negative power, so
mi / h = mi h-1 (because you can read h as h1) and for example ft / s2 (as an acceleration) would be ft s-2.
 
really no where to go.

\frac 1 x = x^{-1}
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top