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.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
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...
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...
Back
Top