Radicals-getting a rational denominator

  • Thread starter Thread starter liz777
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rational
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on simplifying expressions involving radicals, specifically square roots. A user initially struggles with the expression square root of 768 divided by square root of 384 and realizes that simplifying the radicals first leads to a clearer solution, resulting in square root of 2. Another user seeks help with simplifying 9 divided by square root of 448, leading to a breakdown of 448 into its prime factors, revealing that it can be simplified to 8 square root of 7. Ultimately, the final answer for the second expression is determined to be 9 square root of 7 divided by 56. The conversation emphasizes the importance of simplifying radicals through prime factorization for clearer results.
liz777
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
So one of my problems is the square root of 768/square root of 384. I tried multiplying it by the square root of 384/square root of 384, but i ended up with a crazy answer. Should I simply the radicals first and then try it?...never mind, I divide radical 768/radical 384 to get radical 2, right?

But another one I'm stuck on...how do you simplify 9/ square root of 448?

Also,if I have radical 324/radical 147, should I simplify it, like make radical 324, 2 radical 6?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to prime factor 448 to see how this can be simplified. The most obvious first step is to recognize that 448 is even and divisible by 2 (by 4, in fact). If you do that you'll notice that the answer is also divisible by two, and so is the result of that division, and so on...in the end you'll find that 448 is divisible by 2 six times, with the result being 7.

448 = 64 x 7 = 2^6 x 7

of course the square root of 2^6 is 2^3 (ie the square root of 64 is 8). Can you proceed from this point?
 
Thanks, I think I get it. So if I simplied radical 448 out, I would get 8 radical 7. So my final answer would be 9 radical 7 divided by 56.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top