MHB Solving Evaluate 3 * sqr(2): Understanding the Method

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ziggletooth
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on evaluating expressions involving square roots, specifically 3 * sqrt(2) and 2 * sqrt(16). The confusion arises from incorrectly applying the method of squaring both factors, leading to incorrect conclusions about equality. It is clarified that while one can manipulate the expressions, the square root must be properly addressed to avoid errors. The key takeaway is that simplifying square roots involves understanding the context and correctly applying mathematical operations, rather than merely squaring factors. This highlights the importance of careful evaluation in mathematical expressions.
Ziggletooth
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble understanding how this method works and why it appears not to work on similar questions.

For the question evaluate 3 * sqr(2)

I understand I can square both factors to eliminate the square root.

(3 * 3) * 2 = 18

However this does not appear to work with 2 * sqr(16)

(2 * 2 ) * 16 = 64

But the answer is 2 * 4 = 8. I can see why that is, because 4 is the sqr(16), but I don't understand why the previous method failed on what appears to me to be essentially the same question.

Any help would be appreciated, thank you.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You correctly stated that $$2 \sqrt{16} \neq 64$$.

Why would you believe that $$3 \sqrt{2}=18$$? These two are not equal in the same way that the first two are not equal.
 
Ziggletooth said:
I'm having trouble understanding how this method works and why it appears not to work on similar questions.

For the question evaluate 3 * sqr(2)

I understand I can square both factors to eliminate the square root.

(3 * 3) * 2 = 18
Yes, you can but how does that help you evaluate [math]3\sqrt{2}[/math]?

I suspect that you are thinking, instead, of "taking the '3' inside the square root":
[math]3\sqrt{2}= \sqrt{9(2)}= \sqrt{18}[/math].

However this does not appear to work with 2 * sqr(16)

(2 * 2 ) * 16 = 64
But it does work: [math]2\sqrt{16}= \sqrt{4(16)}=\sqrt{64}[/math]

But the answer is 2 * 4 = 8. I can see why that is, because 4 is the sqr(16), but I don't understand why the previous method failed on what appears to me to be essentially the same question.

Any help would be appreciated, thank you.
You can't just "throw away" the square root. If the problem is to find a\sqrt{b} then you can "take the a inside the square root" to get [math]\sqrt{a^2b}[/math] but you still have to take the square root!

Actually most people would consider "simplifying" a square root to be going the other way: to simplify [math]\sqrt{18}[/math] write it as [math]\sqrt{9(2)}= 3\sqrt{2}[/math].
 
I'm sorry it appears the source of my confusion was very much that I assumed I was evaluating something when in fact I was originally doing these operations to make it easier to compare which of two expressions were greater. That wasn't clear to me at the time so I was confused why it wasn't working is some cases but it depended on the context of the numbers I was comparing.

Thanks
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
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...
Back
Top