how to find out square root of a number THE EASY WAY

[tristandavies23]

maby next time you should do it on paper (Y)

[knightoftheword2]

leave the maths to the greeks mate

[paparoni100]

the idea of music was so stupid.

[runningwithmanny]

What the name of this song

[AltaRepublic]

Why the HELL THE MUSIC?!!!! I'M TRYING TO CONCENTRATE! wow... 

[ImTheAwesomeGirl1]

do i divide all numbers with 4? even if i had to find the square root of like 3912732 or just 32?

[ImTheAwesomeGirl1]

do i divide all numbers with 4? even if i had to find the square root of like 3912732 or just 3?

[wagos27]

bull shit

,moron

[tommyshock]

Thank goodness for the mute button!

[mpereztwomx]

...

[Johnlery1321]

Suggestion:

Much better. if you talk while solving.,.,.,

But it helps me a lot,.,.,

[fraudzone511]

how about for the square root of 7921???.. can we apply that?

[fraudzone511]

how about for the square root of 7921???.. can we apply that?

[mpalin11]

This works well with numbers that are divisable by four and squares of a natural number... oh well....

[perimara]

@mpalin11 ...well sort of..you see every number is divisable with four whether this number.....so if we devide for example 25 by 4 this means we have 6.25....so the square root of 6.25 is 2.5....now if you dont know that 2.5 is the square root of 6.25 and you divide it again by 4 then you end up with 1.5625 and if you want to find the square root of this number you are probably mad...so as you can see it can be done with any number but you chose what is more comfortable!

[fraudzone511]

@perimara 

[myvidzpwn]

u spelt devide wrong lol

divide

[LGbikeco]

this turns out to be a longer more confusing problem solving method if you have a large number and simplify it down and still dont know the square root of that... and you will have to keep going and going,, if you dont know

[Adell101]

1:00 what if we didn't know it was 16?

[perimara]

this is just a method to simplify the whole thing. if you don't know the square root of 256 you are going to divide again with 4 which leaves us with 64. and now the square root of that is 8. then you have to double it twice though: 8*2=16 16*2=32 ...

[Adell101]

oh ok

[clericfist]

@perimara wow nice i usally do that but instead of divide by4 i do it by 2 twice lol sorta the same but im only young

[rebprice]

what if you end up with an irrational number underneath the square root after all the fancy foot work like working with the number 162? Of course you can divide this by 9. This yields sqr(81*2) thus providing 9 sqr(2) what now? or are we to understand that we can come up with sqr(2) just by recognizing it?

[looney1023]

wat to go!

youve effectively made solving one square root solving too square roots!

(ps its ot even easier)

[perimara]

ok i think that i havent forced you to follow this method. Some people like it but as far as i can see you r not one of them. In my opinion its much easier solving a square root of a small number than solving a square root of a larger one. No offense but dont follow it if you dont want to.

[zzareht]

EASY way?

[sandman0277]

I was going to critique this method, but it looks like Klutterkicker has done a thorough job already. Pretty much, this method doesn't simplify things in all cases so I wouldn't recommend using it.

[ddoofia1233]

this is a big challenge, but it helps,:)

[klutterkicker]

It's a faulty assumption that this will work (well, work easier). You are adding steps which simplify the problem so long as the original number is divisible by four! So we know that 1024 = (4)(256) so sqrt(1024) = sqrt(4)*sqrt(256).

It is easier to say 1024 = 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2 = 2^10 and sqrt(2^10) = (2^10)^(1/2) = 2^(10/2) = 2^5 = 32. This is an example of prime factorization and using the properties of powers.

Hope this helps some.

[perimara]

what do you mean "so long as the original number is divisible"? every number which has square root can be divided with 4. do it even with an odd number

[klutterkicker]

Well let's take the perfect square 225. By your method, divide this by 4 and get 56.25. Now we have to find the root of 56.25. This happens to be 7.5, but there is no simple way for us to know that (without working backwards to find the root of 225). This is what I meant when I said that it only simplifies the problem when it is divisible (to an integer) by 4.

[klutterkicker]

Now if you use prime factors, you can first notice that it is divisible by 3, so 225 = 3*75 = 3*3*25 = 3*3*5*5. Now we can just take out a copy of each factor and we have our answer, 15.

You seem to have found a method which works for one case and assumes it works for all cases, which is a bad assumption.

[klutterkicker]

Actually I realize that your trick would work very well in reverse - for example using it to find that the square root of 56.25 is 7.5. In other words you would be removing a factor of 1/4, taking the square root, then multiplying again by the square root of 1/4 (or 1/2).

[yeshwanth619]

not every square root number can be divided by 4. well how about 9?

[perimara]

Well of course we know that the squre number of 9 is 3, but if you want to do it with that method youll have 9/4 is 2.25. Now the square root of 2.25 is 1.5 just like 15 is the square root of 225! now we take 1.5 and we double it and we have 3 which is the square root of 9 :)

[therealseasoo]

thats not easier, it's just more work!

[nuggetsfan95]

nice