Changes

::Exactly.  I took a few minutes to think about what Rschlafly is saying again, and I apologise for the outburst.  We make the point in the article that a number has two square roots, but fail to say that ''by convention'' we use the plus/minus symbol when we are making sure we haven't thrown out a solution.  In other words, simply using the radical implies both answers, based on what the article says.  What has to be explained is how this works in solving equations.  Say we take the square root of "both sides" - often what has to happen then is that the two different roots force us into simplifying two separate possible equations in two separate columns, at least until the two possibilities resolve.  It's a hard core math thing, in that in a lot of "real world" situations, there are no negative numbers.  Think carpentry... So, to conclude, I think the expression should be included - but explained better. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:18, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly.  I took a few minutes to think about what Rschlafly is saying again, and I apologise for the outburst.  We make the point in the article that a number has two square roots, but fail to say that ''by convention'' we use the plus/minus symbol when we are making sure we haven't thrown out a solution.  In other words, simply using the radical implies both answers, based on what the article says.  What has to be explained is how this works in solving equations.  Say we take the square root of "both sides" - often what has to happen then is that the two different roots force us into simplifying two separate possible equations in two separate columns, at least until the two possibilities resolve.  It's a hard core math thing, in that in a lot of "real world" situations, there are no negative numbers.  Think carpentry... So, to conclude, I think the expression should be included - but explained better. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:18, 24 April 2007 (EDT)