Page history
Talk: Square root
April 24, 2007
→This is really a usage question
+1,015
→Generalisation: stuff like that can go into Algebra
+241
→Generalisation: good one
+177
no edit summary
+400
→redundant +/-?
+218
→This is really a usage question
+32
→This is really a usage question
+2
→This is really a usage question
+215
→This is really a usage question
+679
→This is really a usage question
+1
This is really a usage question
+2,470
→negative numbers
+434
x = {3, -3}
+145
→redundant +/-?: sig
m+54
→redundant +/-?
+226
→redundant +/-?: defending +/- again
+490
→negative numbers: do have 2 roots
+386
→redundant +/-?: Yes, they are equivalent, and both incorrect.
+105
→negative numbers: Yes, negative numbers do have square roots, as explained later in the article.
+137
negative numbers
+330
→+/- notation deleted?: forgot sig
+48
→+/- notation deleted?
+327
→redudant +/-?: typo, urgh
+1
redudant +/-?
+380
→+/- notation deleted?: No, it cannot be said either way
+175
→+/- notation deleted?
+330
→+/- notation deleted?: Not to be pedantic, but ...
+367
→+/- notation deleted?: both square roots are needed
+313
→+/- notation deleted?: clearer text now?
+196
→+/- notation deleted?: more
+968
→+/- notation deleted?
+249
→+/- notation deleted?: wow...
+737
→+/- notation deleted?
+199
→+/- notation deleted?: I gave an explanation. If you don't believe, trying punching
+174
→+/- notation deleted?
+223
→+/- notation deleted?: I removed it, because it is not technically correct
+352
→+/- notation deleted?: returning it
+106