Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #1 20130821 07:36:38
Question on the square rooth of polynomialsHi : http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/9800/hviw.png #2 20130821 09:19:32
Re: Question on the square rooth of polynomials
The above is a definition. We agree to abide by it to play the game called mathematics. It is a rule.It was a wise decision to define them like that. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #3 20130821 09:29:53
Re: Question on the square rooth of polynomialsMmmh... Okay. I just find it weird that we can't take the square rooth even if it doesn't have a number (two in this case) raised as a power... #4 20130821 09:42:59
Re: Question on the square rooth of polynomialsWe could take that square root but it just would not be a polynomial. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #5 20130821 10:33:55
Re: Question on the square rooth of polynomials
Yes, but that's what I find weird... I don't see the logic behind it. But if it's the way it is, to play the game of mathematics, then we have to consider it that way. #6 20130821 14:47:06
Re: Question on the square rooth of polynomialsThe decision proved to be a good one. If we allowed negative or fractional powers we would just have another class of functions that are non linear and one we would know very little about. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. 