Why to write numbers in square roots and not in decimals?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the representation of coefficients in mathematical expressions, specifically the preference for using exact values in radical form versus decimal approximations. Participants explore the implications of using approximations in calculations and the nature of irrational numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why a coefficient is written in radical form instead of as a decimal approximation, citing a specific expression.
  • Another participant clarifies that decimal representations are approximations and that no matter how many digits are used, there is always an error associated with them.
  • A further contribution emphasizes that the radical form, such as ##-\frac{3\sqrt{33}-4}{112}##, is exact, contrasting it with the imprecision of decimal approximations.
  • One participant explains the concept of irrational numbers using ##\sqrt{2}## as an example, noting that its decimal representation is infinite and non-repeating, thus never exactly equal to the radical form.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the merits of using exact values in radical form versus decimal approximations, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not reached a consensus on the best approach to represent coefficients, and there are unresolved questions regarding the implications of using approximations in mathematical expressions.

pairofstrings
Messages
411
Reaction score
7
Hi. I have coefficient of x2 as
Screenshot-2018-6-27%20Desmos%20Scientific%20Calculator_zpspvlymbzx.png


in an expression that looks like this
Screenshot-2018-6-27%20Desmos%20Scientific%20Calculator1_zps61nrorgw.png


* calculator shows little yellow triangle because 'x' is not defined.

If I can write the coefficient of x2 as - 0.091372213746554 then why did the author write coefficient of x2 like this shown below?
Screenshot-2018-6-27%20Desmos%20Scientific%20Calculator2_zpsji2vfmgf.png


Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot-2018-6-27%20Desmos%20Scientific%20Calculator_zpspvlymbzx.png
    Screenshot-2018-6-27%20Desmos%20Scientific%20Calculator_zpspvlymbzx.png
    22.2 KB · Views: 922
  • Screenshot-2018-6-27%20Desmos%20Scientific%20Calculator1_zps61nrorgw.png
    Screenshot-2018-6-27%20Desmos%20Scientific%20Calculator1_zps61nrorgw.png
    19.4 KB · Views: 902
  • Screenshot-2018-6-27%20Desmos%20Scientific%20Calculator2_zpsji2vfmgf.png
    Screenshot-2018-6-27%20Desmos%20Scientific%20Calculator2_zpsji2vfmgf.png
    1 KB · Views: 567
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
pairofstrings said:
the author
Of what?
 
-0.091372213746554 is not exact. It is only an approximation, where the number of digits is determined by the the calculator. A better approximation is:
-0.091372213746554339103141378613 - but that is again not exact, it just has a smaller error. No matter how many digits you add you always have an error.

##\displaystyle -\frac{3\sqrt{33}-4}{112}## is exact.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: symbolipoint and jedishrfu
@pairofstrings, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between numbers represented by radicals and decimal approximations of them. For example, the exact value of the diagonal of a square 1 unit on each side is ##\sqrt 2##. This value can be approximated by 1.414 or 1.4142 or 1.41421 or even 1.4142135623730950488016887242097, but none of them is exactly equal to ##\sqrt 2##.

##\sqrt 2## is an example of an irrational number, one whose decimal represention takes an infinite number of digits to the right of the decimal point, with no repeating pattern.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K