
Re: sqrt(x) without approximation?
Posted:
Feb 9, 2013 7:22 PM


On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:52:11 PM UTC8, Virgil wrote: > In article <481ec796f71f42d080d6032ac736f6be@googlegroups.com>, > > forbisgaryg@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, February 9, 2013 1:30:25 PM UTC8, Virgil wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <98c9f2d8e09f4cc3aedad51f831b840c@k14g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, > > > > JT <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Is there always such a base for any N that we can write sqrt(N) > > > > > without approximation? Would it matter if we use NyaN or standard > > > > > bases. > > > > > > > > No and no! > > > > > > > > While sqrt(N) for nonsquare N, can be approximated in standard > > > > notations, I do not see that there can be any analog to digits to the > > > > right of a decimal point for your NyaN numbers. > > > > > > In base sqrt(n), n is expressed as 100. > > > > > > But that was not the question asked. > > The question asked was "How in NYaN does one write sqrt(n)?" > > 
I was answering the first question. In base sqrt(2) the naturals would be 1, 100, 101, 1000, etc. It didn't dawn on me that an irrational base would handle the naturals so nicely.

