#1

so i figured out an interesting way to figure out perfect squares.

so everybody know that the sq. root of 1 is 1? right?

add 1 and 2(the next square) to 1.

that's 4. 4 is the square of 2.

add 2 and 3 to 4, you get 9.

9 is the square of 3.

add 3 and 4 to 9.

you get 16, the square of 4.

add 4 and 5 to 16,

you get 25, the square of 5.

get it?

it's impractical but whatever. i think it's quite interesting, and i've never seen anybody see this pattern.

so am i god or what?

so everybody know that the sq. root of 1 is 1? right?

add 1 and 2(the next square) to 1.

that's 4. 4 is the square of 2.

add 2 and 3 to 4, you get 9.

9 is the square of 3.

add 3 and 4 to 9.

you get 16, the square of 4.

add 4 and 5 to 16,

you get 25, the square of 5.

get it?

it's impractical but whatever. i think it's quite interesting, and i've never seen anybody see this pattern.

so am i god or what?

#2

No, welcome to the pit.

#3

I'm pretty sure this has already been realized.

#4

That's kind of cool. I'm sure it's not new, but thanks anyway.

#5

If you have to ask, the answer is usually no.

#6

Cool pattern but pretty useless if you ask me

#7

i didnt even ead your post. the answer is yes. yes you are.

#8

#9

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I read this 5 times and can't see the pattern.

#10

So, just a quick thought.

There are a lot of people naturally gifted in fields of academia. Hell, you may be one.

But there are a lot of people naturally gifted in fields of academia who are older than you, have doctorates and decades of field work under their belts.

It's possible you've come up with something new, but in all likelihood, 99 of 100 times, it's already been thought of by someone much more qualified. They're paid just to sit and think for a reason.

Not to say this isn't cool or helpful - it definitely is. Just giving context.

There are a lot of people naturally gifted in fields of academia. Hell, you may be one.

But there are a lot of people naturally gifted in fields of academia who are older than you, have doctorates and decades of field work under their belts.

It's possible you've come up with something new, but in all likelihood, 99 of 100 times, it's already been thought of by someone much more qualified. They're paid just to sit and think for a reason.

Not to say this isn't cool or helpful - it definitely is. Just giving context.

*Last edited by necrosis1193 at Sep 28, 2011,*

#11

Woah there Issac Newton don't get too revolutionary in your mathematical thinking.

#12

Pretty neat, TS.

#13

Brb, taking credit for your idea.

#14

Probably not. I'll go read your post now.

EDIT: No.

EDIT: No.

#15

Oh hey national association for mathematics? I just came up with this awesome way to figure out perfect squares. What would I like to call it? The Twist of Fate theorum.

Yes that will be cash.

Yes that will be cash.

#16

I'm pretty sure these are all just Pythagorean triplets.

#17

x^2=(x-1)^2+x+(x-1)

x^2=x^2-2x+1+x+x-1

x^2=x^2

Unfortunately it's nothing innovational, just a nice coincidence

x^2=x^2-2x+1+x+x-1

x^2=x^2

Unfortunately it's nothing innovational, just a nice coincidence

#18

Oh hey national association for mathematics? I just came up with this awesome way to figure out perfect squares. What would I like to call it? The Twist of Fate theorum.

Yes that will be cash.

You can take that cash and buy yourself some more

#19

You're about 2500 years late.

Pythagorean Triple

Euclid's Elements contains the mathematical proof, and was published in 300 BCE.

Pythagorean Triple

Euclid's Elements contains the mathematical proof, and was published in 300 BCE.

#20

I'm pretty sure these are all just Pythagorean triplets.

Only 3, 4, 5 is. The rest is slow multiplication.

That is nifty TS. Keep up the good work. (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm actually complimenting you).

#21

I couldn't follow your shitty description but that sounds like triangles.

#22

ill make it clearer,

so the symbol for square root in this case is *

so:

*1=1

*4=2

*9=3

*16=4

*25=5

*36=6

*49=7

*64=8

*81=9

*100=10

*121=11

*144=12

*169=13

*196=14

*255=15

so basically with your square roots, you add the perfect squares to the roots, so to get the square of 2, you add 1 and 2 to the square root of 1. to get the square of 3, you add 2 and 3 to the square of 2. and so forth.

EDIT: im really shitty at explaining this, but you should understand by now.

so the symbol for square root in this case is *

so:

*1=1

*4=2

*9=3

*16=4

*25=5

*36=6

*49=7

*64=8

*81=9

*100=10

*121=11

*144=12

*169=13

*196=14

*255=15

so basically with your square roots, you add the perfect squares to the roots, so to get the square of 2, you add 1 and 2 to the square root of 1. to get the square of 3, you add 2 and 3 to the square of 2. and so forth.

EDIT: im really shitty at explaining this, but you should understand by now.

*Last edited by LolCatGuitar at Sep 28, 2011,*

#23

The more general rule as I've found it to be is:

n^2 = (n-1)^2 + 2(n-1) + 1

So 26 squared would be 25 squared plus twice 25 plus one. Do the math and that gives you

625 + 50 + 1 = 676

Which is indeed 26 squared.

This is none too difficult and handy for finding squares near numbers you already know the squares of.

n^2 = (n-1)^2 + 2(n-1) + 1

So 26 squared would be 25 squared plus twice 25 plus one. Do the math and that gives you

625 + 50 + 1 = 676

Which is indeed 26 squared.

This is none too difficult and handy for finding squares near numbers you already know the squares of.

#24

I'm not in High School, so i'm not going to give any more shits about math than I did while in HS (this was very little shits)

#25

Never mind, too many numbers to be triangles.

n^2 + n + (n+1) = (n+1)^2

right?

n^2 + n + (n+1) = (n+1)^2

right?

#26

Hmmm, what's seventy five squared

Well, you see... We start from 1, add 3, then

How about we just use a calculator?

Well, you see... We start from 1, add 3, then

How about we just use a calculator?

#27

x^2+(x+x+1)=(x+1)^2

x^2+2x+1=(x+1)^2

(x+1)^2=(x+1)^2

x^2+2x+1=(x+1)^2

(x+1)^2=(x+1)^2

#28

You're posting in the Pit, so no.

#29

I'm not in high school anymore, so I don't give a shit

Also just use a calculator.

Also just use a calculator.

#30

n^2 + n + (n+1) = (n+1)^2

Herp. Derp.

x^2 + x + x + 1 = (x+1)^2

x^2 + 2x + 1 = (x+1)^2

That looks amazingly familiar. SHEdit: Binomial thereom, y = 1.

#31

If you have to ask, the answer is usually no.

this

#32

Herp. Derp.

x^2 + x + x + 1 = (x+1)^2

x^2 + 2x + 1 = (x+1)^2

That looks amazingly familiar. SHEdit: Binomial thereom, y = 1.

It's actually

Length x diameter + weight over girth/ by angle of the tip(2)

#33

It's actually

Length x diameter + weight over girth/ by angle of the tip(2)

#34

#35

Don't know about "genius" TS, but you're smarter than me. I suck at maths.

#36

Too early in the am to go there...