Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Find the perfect square closest to n(x), i just want the perfect square above or below no decimals. Can it be solved using geometry?
Replies: 7   Last Post: Nov 1, 2013 8:53 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 scattered Posts: 92 Registered: 6/21/12
Re: Find the perfect square closest to n(x), i just want the perfect
square above or below no decimals. Can it be solved using geometry?

Posted: Nov 1, 2013 7:13 AM

On Friday, November 1, 2013 12:22:07 AM UTC-4, graham...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:01:53 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>

> > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>
> >
>
> > <snip>
>
> >
>
> > > Actually Ben i have a similar that may be easier for you to follow,
>
> >
>
> > > any square can be divided into 4 sub squares. And if we have a number
>
> >
>
> > > we can find the 10^x above it and 10^x-1 below it.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > So 10^x is 1 now we can chose if we want 0 at real zero or zero at
>
> >
>
> > > square 10^x-1 If we choose the later we close in faster. Now the area
>
> >
>
> > > between the lesser and bigger square or if we use zero, can be
>
> >
>
> > > described as a percentage ratio of the height.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sorry, I can't make head nor tail of this.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > <snip>
>
> >
>
> > > The perfect square we find is subtracted from our number and now we
>
> >
>
> > > work same approach for this smaller square. This is repeated until the
>
> >
>
> > > full number is encoded to a series of squares + a small integer less
>
> >
>
> > > then 4.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Yes, this bit I've understood, but why? What's the point of doing this?
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd like a SQRT(X) algorithm that goes to 10,000 digits.
>
>
>
> useful for 1 time cypher pads in this age of eavesdropping!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In Javascript, so no more than 100,000 maths operations..
>
>
>
>
>
> Binary is fine too!
>
>
>
>
>
> I understand Ben's point... if you are using repeated approximations
>
> then Newtons method is very fast.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Herc
>
> --
>
> www.PrologDatabase.com

How would *any* mathematical operation be useful in the
creation of 1-time pads? Running a random bit-pattern through
a function is at best harmless and at worst will introduce
statistical correlations between the bits which could only
hurt security. On the other hand -- if the input to the
function has not been generated by a genuinely random
process then it isn't a 1-time pad. It is true that the output
of a pseudo-random number generator *might* be improved (from the point
of view of passing various statistical tests for randomness) by running it
through a function, but that has nothing to do with 1-time pads.

Date Subject Author
10/31/13 Ben Bacarisse
11/1/13 Graham Cooper
11/1/13 scattered
11/1/13 Graham Cooper
11/1/13 JT
11/1/13 JT
11/1/13 JT