Is the Book Wrong? - Square Root of 4

Numbnut247
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
hey guys on my textbook, it says that square root of 4 equals to 2 but not negative 2. The book is wrong right?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What's the context? Maybe an absolute value symbol is hiding! Maybe its looking for solutions where a -2 would cause a divide by 0 or negative square root situation.
 
Just to extend on what Pengwuino said...

Textbook authors very often skip steps, or leave out what they feel to be implied information. Sometimes this is simply necessary if it's not relevant to the actual problem being discussed.

Physicists are notorious for doing this. They write math that may not be fully "correct," but they assume their readers know and understand the context of the mathematics.

For example, if a negative value doesn't make sense in the excerpt you're reading, the author assumed you knew and understood why s/he was discarding this value.

Unless the book you are reading is trying to teach you how to take the square root of something, then it's normal.. so get used to it ;)
 
Numbnut,

We have to take your word that the textbook said "square root" but I suspect it says \sqrt 4 = 2 (a true statement) while \sqrt 4 = -2 is definitely a false statement. However, there are, two real numbers whose squares are 4 (\sqrt 4 = 2 and -\sqrt 4 = -2).
 
Last edited:
Tide said:
Numbnut,

We have to take your word that the textbook said "square root" but I suspect it says \sqrt 4 = 2 (a true statement) while \sqrt 4 = -2 is definitely a false statement. However, there are, two real numbers whose squares are 4 (\sqrt 4 = 2 and -\sqrt 4 = -2).
But I think it's the part where (-2)^2 = 4 bothers him. Taking the square root of both sides...

But as was already mentioned, the context of the statement makes a difference.
 
Numbnut247 said:
hey guys on my textbook, it says that square root of 4 equals to 2 but not negative 2. The book is wrong right?

Your book is correct. The square root of a positive number a, is defined as the positive number x, such that x*x= a.


It is true that 2*2= 4 and that (-2)*(-2)= 4. Since 2 is the positive value the square root of 2 is 2.

Of course, if you were solving the equation x2= 4, you would have two answer: x= 2 and x= -2. That causes some people confusion.

Think of it this way: The solution to the equation x2= a (where a is a positive number) has to be written
x= \pm\sqrt{a}.
We have to have that "\pm" precisely because \sqrt{a} does not include the negative.
 
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top