Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.


JT
Posts:
1,150
Registered:
4/7/12


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 10:52 AM


Den fredagen den 1:e november 2013 kl. 04:01:53 UTC+1 skrev Ben Bacarisse: > 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^x1 below it. > > > > > > So 10^x is 1 now we can chose if we want 0 at real zero or zero at > > > square 10^x1 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? > > > > <snip> > >  > > Ben.
Main point is that it ism, i think it is a nice way express very big numbers without any approximation.
Another is that we can encode any number making a square modular number system doing mathematic in, since it seem consistent enough doing arithmetic in, without go back to standard bases. So it is not just naturals it work perfectly good for reals.
Another point i do not which to spell out i rather implement it and refine it before showing. But that point is probably the reason i implemented it in the first case, but i think this encoding of numbersystem is quite useful.



