MHB Not a "help need" but a question about "a self made square root formula"

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the exploration of simplifying square roots, prompted by a student's inquiry about easier methods after a teacher's remark that finding them is inherently difficult. The student proposes a method involving dividing the number by 4 and then taking the square root of the result multiplied by the square root of 4, exemplified with the calculation of √36. Responses highlight that while the proposed method works for perfect squares, it may not be applicable for non-perfect squares, suggesting alternative approaches like the bisection method for approximating square roots. The conversation also touches on the mathematical properties of exponents and the relationship between square roots and perfect squares. Overall, the thread emphasizes the complexity of square roots and the various methods available for their calculation.
Angel11
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello,first time posting a thread not just here but generally so i'll try my best.
So while i was in class we were learning about square roots,at first it seemed fairly easy,but when i asked my math teacher how do we find them more easily, he smiled and talled me:"The problem is,you just don't".So that put me into a lot of thinking when i went home about if it is really impossible to simplify square roots at the point where i couldn't function properly.after about 2 days of thinking and trying diffrent ways i found out this one:If you divide your number (without the square rooting symbole) by 4 and then you square root the result with the square root of 4 then the result is the answer.For example if i want to find the \sqrt{36} then we do: 36/4=9. \sqrt{9}*\sqrt{4}=\sqrt{36} or \sqrt{9}*\sqrt{4}=6 which is the resolt of \sqrt{36}.My question to this is:has it ever been found becouse it seems fairly easier to do it that way instead of multipling numbers until you find it. Also i don't want to call it a solution becouse you still must find a square root
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello and welcome to MHB, Angel1! (Wave)

There are algorithms, similar to long division, for manually computing square (and other) roots. I don't think they are taught much now though.

What you've discovered is a property of exponents...namely (let's assume all values are non-negative):

$$\left(a^b\cdot c^d\right)^n=a^{bn}\cdot c^{dn}$$

A square root is equivalent to an exponent of $$\frac{1}{2}$$, that is:

$$\sqrt{x}=x^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

So, if you don't readily see that the radicand (the number under the radical) is a perfect square, but you do see it is the product of perfect squares, then you may state:

$$\sqrt{x}=\sqrt{a^2\cdot b^2}=\left(a^2\cdot b^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=a^{2\cdot\frac{1}{2}}\cdot b^{2\cdot\frac{1}{2}}=a\cdot b=ab$$

You don't need to use rational exponents yet, as we can simply write:

$$\sqrt{x}=\sqrt{a^2\cdot b^2}=\sqrt{a^2}\cdot\sqrt{b^2}=a\cdot b=ab$$
 
Angel1 said:
Hello,first time posting a thread not just here but generally so i'll try my best.
So while i was in class we were learning about square roots,at first it seemed fairly easy,but when i asked my math teacher how do we find them more easily, he smiled and talled me:"The problem is,you just don't".So that put me into a lot of thinking when i went home about if it is really impossible to simplify square roots at the point where i couldn't function properly.after about 2 days of thinking and trying diffrent ways i found out this one:If you divide your number (without the square rooting symbole) by 4 and then you square root the result with the square root of 4 then the result is the answer.For example if i want to find the \sqrt{36} then we do: 36/4=9. \sqrt{9}*\sqrt{4}=\sqrt{36} or \sqrt{9}*\sqrt{4}=6 which is the resolt of \sqrt{36}.My question to this is:has it ever been found becouse it seems fairly easier to do it that way instead of multipling numbers until you find it. Also i don't want to call it a solution becouse you still must find a square root
That works as long as the square root is an integer.

If not, for example, if we want to find the square root of 30, we know that 25= 5^2 and 36= 6^2 are perfect squares, and 30 is between them. We also know that "squaring" is an increasing function (if a< b then a^2< b^2) so the square root of 30 must be between 5 and 6. We don't know where but the simplest "guess" would be half-way between 5 and 6, 5.5. (5.5)^2= 30.25. That is larger than 30 so we know the root must be between 5 and 5.5 so we might now try half way between those, 5.25. Repeat that until the two endpoints of the interval are "close enough" together, within whatever error is acceptable.

This method is referred to as "bisection" because at each step we halve the interval. Notice that 30 is a lot closer to 30.25 than to 25 so we might suspect that the root of 30 will be closer to 5.5 than to 5. We can make use of that by using the "secant" method. Instead of just choosing half way, we replace the curve y= sqrt(x) by the straight line from (5, 25) to (5.5, 30.25) then determine where that line crosses y= 30.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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