Difference between revisions of "Talk:Square root"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(+/- notation deleted?)
(+/- notation deleted?: returning it)
Line 25: Line 25:
  
 
Being deleted?  It is not only correct, it is very important.  For instance, the [[quadratic formula]] page would need it if the details of [[completing the square]] were laid out.  Earlier today, Rschlafly removed it, I reverted it back in, and now Jacques has removed it.  So let us discuss it here?  [[User:Human|Human]] 13:50, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
 
Being deleted?  It is not only correct, it is very important.  For instance, the [[quadratic formula]] page would need it if the details of [[completing the square]] were laid out.  Earlier today, Rschlafly removed it, I reverted it back in, and now Jacques has removed it.  So let us discuss it here?  [[User:Human|Human]] 13:50, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
:Hearing no objection or reason, I am putting it back in. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 23:12, 23 April 2007

I have commented out part of the text, until I figure out how to generate the radical symbol for roots. Also, it looks like a few basic math files need to be created... Human 16:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

like this Jaques 17:46, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Order?

The current article jumps back and forth with concepts. We go from the intro to irrational numbers, then to imaginary numbers, and only then do we get the whole "two square roots per number" and "notation" stuff laid down. Anybody mind if I try to re-arrange some stuff? --Sid 3050 17:43, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll take that as a "No". Going in... --Sid 3050 18:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. In my eyes, this is a bit more structured than before. Opinions, edits and expansions welcome, of course. Just my suggestion. --Sid 3050 18:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, you're right. I think it might need some more copyediting in order to truly "introduce" topics in order of complexity. But at least now the article exists - and is already better than it started. You didn't get a response earlier because you were fixing it about eleven seconds after I saved it ;) Human 19:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT) Oops, reason for strikethrough, it's chaged again for the even better! Human 19:18, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Zero

Wouldn't only all nonzero numbers have two square roots? MountainDew 17:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cross-checking with Wikipedia (my Calculus books are out of reach at the moment) says that the square roots do not have to be distinct, so . But there are indeed two. --Sid 3050 17:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Whoa, thanks for fixing this thing up so fast, folks! Human 18:06, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

+/- notation deleted?

Why is this:

"As such, the technically correct way of writing is
"

Being deleted? It is not only correct, it is very important. For instance, the quadratic formula page would need it if the details of completing the square were laid out. Earlier today, Rschlafly removed it, I reverted it back in, and now Jacques has removed it. So let us discuss it here? Human 13:50, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Hearing no objection or reason, I am putting it back in. Human 01:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)