Simplifying radicals without using prime factorization
Multi tool use
2
$begingroup$
Is there an easy way to simplify radicals?
For example, take the case of $sqrt{252}$. We can the find prime factorization of $252$ as $252=2times 2times 3 times 3times 7$ and thus we get $sqrt{252}=sqrt{2times 2times 3 times 3times 7}=6sqrt{7}.$
This method takes more time for large numbers. Without doing these calculations, i.e., without finding out prime factorization, is there any approach available to simplify radicals?
Please help. thanks.
elementary-number-theory prime-numbers prime-factorization
edited Nov 28 '18 at 10:01
daniel
6,22022157
asked Nov 26 '18 at 17:19
KiranKiran
3,21411634
$endgroup$
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Is there an easy way to simplify radicals?
For example, take the case of $sqrt{252}$. We can the find prime factorization of $252$ as $252=2times 2times 3 times 3times 7$ and thus we get $sqrt{252}=sqrt{2times 2times 3 times 3times 7}=6sqrt{7}.$
This method takes more time for large numbers. Without doing these calculations, i.e., without finding out prime factorization, is there any approach available to simplify radicals?
Please help. thanks.
elementary-number-theory prime-numbers prime-factorization
edited Nov 28 '18 at 10:01
daniel
6,22022157
asked Nov 26 '18 at 17:19
KiranKiran
3,21411634
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
For this kind of simplification, not really, I think. If all you're after is $15.87$, then there are numerous methods (not that I personally know very many, but I know they are there).
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Nov 26 '18 at 17:28
$begingroup$
thanks for the info
$endgroup$
– Kiran
Nov 26 '18 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
If the number if definable as a multiple of some perfect square factors, that would mean the radical is reducible.For example:$252=16^2-2^2=(16-2)(16+2)=2^2.3^2.7$. I think this takes shorter time than factorizing.
$endgroup$
– sirous
Nov 27 '18 at 3:21
$begingroup$
If the number is too large to complete the factorization, you cannot do any better than factor the number as far as possible. If you continue upto, lets say, $10^6$, chances that the cofactor is squarefree, are very good. In most cases, you will not miss a better solution, but only the factorization makes all doubts vanish.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 19 at 15:39
$begingroup$
@sirous But in general, deciding whether a number is squarefree is not significantly easier than factoring.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 20 at 12:50
add a comment |
2
2
2
$begingroup$
Is there an easy way to simplify radicals?
For example, take the case of $sqrt{252}$. We can the find prime factorization of $252$ as $252=2times 2times 3 times 3times 7$ and thus we get $sqrt{252}=sqrt{2times 2times 3 times 3times 7}=6sqrt{7}.$
This method takes more time for large numbers. Without doing these calculations, i.e., without finding out prime factorization, is there any approach available to simplify radicals?
Please help. thanks.
elementary-number-theory prime-numbers prime-factorization
edited Nov 28 '18 at 10:01
daniel
6,22022157
asked Nov 26 '18 at 17:19
KiranKiran
3,21411634
$endgroup$
Is there an easy way to simplify radicals?
For example, take the case of $sqrt{252}$. We can the find prime factorization of $252$ as $252=2times 2times 3 times 3times 7$ and thus we get $sqrt{252}=sqrt{2times 2times 3 times 3times 7}=6sqrt{7}.$
This method takes more time for large numbers. Without doing these calculations, i.e., without finding out prime factorization, is there any approach available to simplify radicals?
Please help. thanks.
elementary-number-theory prime-numbers prime-factorization
elementary-number-theory prime-numbers prime-factorization
edited Nov 28 '18 at 10:01
daniel
6,22022157
asked Nov 26 '18 at 17:19
KiranKiran
3,21411634
edited Nov 28 '18 at 10:01
daniel
6,22022157
asked Nov 26 '18 at 17:19
KiranKiran
3,21411634
edited Nov 28 '18 at 10:01
daniel
6,22022157
edited Nov 28 '18 at 10:01
daniel
6,22022157
edited Nov 28 '18 at 10:01
daniel
6,22022157
6,22022157
asked Nov 26 '18 at 17:19
KiranKiran
3,21411634
asked Nov 26 '18 at 17:19
KiranKiran
3,21411634
asked Nov 26 '18 at 17:19
KiranKiran
3,21411634
3,21411634
$begingroup$
For this kind of simplification, not really, I think. If all you're after is $15.87$, then there are numerous methods (not that I personally know very many, but I know they are there).
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Nov 26 '18 at 17:28
$begingroup$
thanks for the info
$endgroup$
– Kiran
Nov 26 '18 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
If the number if definable as a multiple of some perfect square factors, that would mean the radical is reducible.For example:$252=16^2-2^2=(16-2)(16+2)=2^2.3^2.7$. I think this takes shorter time than factorizing.
$endgroup$
– sirous
Nov 27 '18 at 3:21
$begingroup$
If the number is too large to complete the factorization, you cannot do any better than factor the number as far as possible. If you continue upto, lets say, $10^6$, chances that the cofactor is squarefree, are very good. In most cases, you will not miss a better solution, but only the factorization makes all doubts vanish.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 19 at 15:39
$begingroup$
@sirous But in general, deciding whether a number is squarefree is not significantly easier than factoring.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 20 at 12:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For this kind of simplification, not really, I think. If all you're after is $15.87$, then there are numerous methods (not that I personally know very many, but I know they are there).
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Nov 26 '18 at 17:28
$begingroup$
thanks for the info
$endgroup$
– Kiran
Nov 26 '18 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
If the number if definable as a multiple of some perfect square factors, that would mean the radical is reducible.For example:$252=16^2-2^2=(16-2)(16+2)=2^2.3^2.7$. I think this takes shorter time than factorizing.
$endgroup$
– sirous
Nov 27 '18 at 3:21
$begingroup$
If the number is too large to complete the factorization, you cannot do any better than factor the number as far as possible. If you continue upto, lets say, $10^6$, chances that the cofactor is squarefree, are very good. In most cases, you will not miss a better solution, but only the factorization makes all doubts vanish.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 19 at 15:39
$begingroup$
@sirous But in general, deciding whether a number is squarefree is not significantly easier than factoring.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 20 at 12:50
$begingroup$
For this kind of simplification, not really, I think. If all you're after is $15.87$, then there are numerous methods (not that I personally know very many, but I know they are there).
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Nov 26 '18 at 17:28
$begingroup$
For this kind of simplification, not really, I think. If all you're after is $15.87$, then there are numerous methods (not that I personally know very many, but I know they are there).
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Nov 26 '18 at 17:28
$begingroup$
thanks for the info
$endgroup$
– Kiran
Nov 26 '18 at 17:34
$begingroup$
thanks for the info
$endgroup$
– Kiran
Nov 26 '18 at 17:34
1
1
$begingroup$
If the number if definable as a multiple of some perfect square factors, that would mean the radical is reducible.For example:$252=16^2-2^2=(16-2)(16+2)=2^2.3^2.7$. I think this takes shorter time than factorizing.
$endgroup$
– sirous
Nov 27 '18 at 3:21
$begingroup$
If the number if definable as a multiple of some perfect square factors, that would mean the radical is reducible.For example:$252=16^2-2^2=(16-2)(16+2)=2^2.3^2.7$. I think this takes shorter time than factorizing.
$endgroup$
– sirous
Nov 27 '18 at 3:21
$begingroup$
If the number is too large to complete the factorization, you cannot do any better than factor the number as far as possible. If you continue upto, lets say, $10^6$, chances that the cofactor is squarefree, are very good. In most cases, you will not miss a better solution, but only the factorization makes all doubts vanish.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 19 at 15:39
$begingroup$
If the number is too large to complete the factorization, you cannot do any better than factor the number as far as possible. If you continue upto, lets say, $10^6$, chances that the cofactor is squarefree, are very good. In most cases, you will not miss a better solution, but only the factorization makes all doubts vanish.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 19 at 15:39
$begingroup$
@sirous But in general, deciding whether a number is squarefree is not significantly easier than factoring.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 20 at 12:50
$begingroup$
@sirous But in general, deciding whether a number is squarefree is not significantly easier than factoring.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 20 at 12:50
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014616%2fsimplifying-radicals-without-using-prime-factorization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014616%2fsimplifying-radicals-without-using-prime-factorization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Y,A9ggE myoA9a yqgE,lNJ,Q,3j,bIwOp4Iz,BRZ9MAJe kpsRRKbt 4s1 Idn,H1,SU5HPTUkCkpZCF oK WZkbz8,eQ
$begingroup$
For this kind of simplification, not really, I think. If all you're after is $15.87$, then there are numerous methods (not that I personally know very many, but I know they are there).
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Nov 26 '18 at 17:28
$begingroup$
thanks for the info
$endgroup$
– Kiran
Nov 26 '18 at 17:34
1
$begingroup$
If the number if definable as a multiple of some perfect square factors, that would mean the radical is reducible.For example:$252=16^2-2^2=(16-2)(16+2)=2^2.3^2.7$. I think this takes shorter time than factorizing.
$endgroup$
– sirous
Nov 27 '18 at 3:21
$begingroup$
If the number is too large to complete the factorization, you cannot do any better than factor the number as far as possible. If you continue upto, lets say, $10^6$, chances that the cofactor is squarefree, are very good. In most cases, you will not miss a better solution, but only the factorization makes all doubts vanish.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 19 at 15:39
$begingroup$
@sirous But in general, deciding whether a number is squarefree is not significantly easier than factoring.
$endgroup$
– Peter
Jan 20 at 12:50