23 Jun
2004
23 Jun
'04
10:39 a.m.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 auryn(a)gci-net.com wrote:
The successive interpolation that I usually use for square roots works
fine for cube roots, if they are sufficiently far from 0.
sorry about the typo. I meant to say the square rootS of 2 and of 3.
~1.414 ~1.732
But the square root of (2 AND 3) would be the square root of (2) :-)
How many
current students can find a square root without
a sqrt or x^y key on a calculator?
How many can do a *cube* root without a calculator
(or log/alog tables)? I suspect the "bar" is far lower than
suggested here.
I'd wager "long division" sets many scratching their
heads...
TRUE!
How many even
know the square root of 2 and 3?
2.236+ ;-)