Calculating 3^0.2 without using a calculator?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bigyan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the value of 3^0.2 without the use of a calculator. Participants explore various methods, including logarithmic approaches, Newton's method, and historical techniques, while addressing the nature of irrational numbers and fractional exponents.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether 3^0.2 can be expressed in a similar manner to integer exponents, suggesting a misunderstanding of fractional exponents.
  • Another participant asserts that fractional exponents generally lead to irrational numbers, which cannot be expressed as a simple product of integers or rational numbers.
  • Some participants propose using logarithms to compute 3^0.2, detailing a method involving natural logarithms and logarithm tables.
  • Newton's method is suggested as a way to approximate the fifth root of 3, with participants discussing the iterative process involved.
  • There is mention of the Babylonian method for square roots, with a participant noting its historical significance and accuracy compared to Newton's method.
  • Some participants express curiosity about how calculators perform such calculations, leading to discussions about the underlying mathematical principles.
  • There are references to the binomial theorem and its potential application to fractional exponents, though this is not explored in depth.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of fractional exponents and their representation. While some agree on the use of logarithms and Newton's method, there is no consensus on a single method for calculating 3^0.2 without a calculator.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various mathematical concepts, including irrational numbers, logarithmic identities, and iterative methods, but do not fully resolve the complexities involved in calculating fractional powers without a calculator.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying mathematics, particularly in understanding methods for calculating powers and roots without electronic aids, as well as the properties of irrational numbers and fractional exponents.

  • #31
BobG said:
You're killing me, here. :smile:

I swear. People born after the invention of the electronic calculator have no appreciation for art.

Did you make your last assertion wrt to me??Learn that before putting my hand on a 'scientific' calculator (the one with radicals,trig.functions and logarithms),i worked both with a slide rule and with logarithm tables.I want to say that i found it more "challanging" working with the logarithm tables rather than slide rule,which is in fact some sort of calculator too...You don't make that calculation,the slide rule does.

Daniel.

PS.Actually,all the calculations are being made by the ones who computed the first logarithm tables.We're just taking advantage of their work...
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32
dextercioby said:
Did you make your last assertion wrt to me??Learn that before putting my hand on a 'scientific' calculator (the one with radicals,trig.functions and logarithms),i worked both with a slide rule and with logarithm tables.I want to say that i found it more "challanging" working with the logarithm tables rather than slide rule,which is in fact some sort of calculator too...You don't make that calculation,the slide rule does.

Daniel.

PS.Actually,all the calculations are being made by the ones who computed the first logarithm tables.We're just taking advantage of their work...
I'm just kidding with you.

I just like slide rules, probably as much (if not more) for aesthetic reasons as for function (bamboo just has such a nice feel to it, you get a satisfaction beyond just an answer). Plus, a lot of them have a sense of history to them. And, considering the condition of a lot of the slide rules you come across, they give you something to tinker with to restore them to back to perfect operating condition (although, a couple seem frustratingly beyond restoration to mere functionality - gouges and warping can be pretty hard to undo).
 
  • #33
If I had these pieces of equipment I would try to use them but all I have is my scientific calculator.

The Bob (2004 ©)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
929
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
202K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K