Timeline for Is there any simple method to calculate $\sqrt x$ without using logarithm
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2022 at 14:33 | answer | added | TROUZINE Abderrezaq | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 8, 2019 at 16:11 | answer | added | CopyPasteIt | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 8, 2019 at 17:32 | answer | added | CopyPasteIt | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 27, 2018 at 11:13 | answer | added | user266764 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 3, 2018 at 15:54 | answer | added | Latin Wolf | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 21, 2017 at 11:53 | comment | added | Paddy Landau | If you have a simple calculator that will give you a square root (this isn't exactly what you ask, which is why I don't post it as an answer), there is a simple method to approximate $\sqrt[R]{n}$. See my related question, which gives an easy method. | |
| Dec 3, 2016 at 3:41 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | edited tags | |
| Jul 10, 2014 at 12:40 | comment | added | hardmath | For an older take on the subject with good Answers, How can I find the square root using pen-and-paper?. | |
| Dec 22, 2013 at 9:32 | comment | added | zerosofthezeta | I read about Euclid's geometric method to find sqrt x... | |
| Dec 22, 2013 at 7:47 | answer | added | wendy.krieger | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Dec 22, 2013 at 7:30 | history | suggested | Frenzy Li | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Correct the square root of 78 |
| Dec 22, 2013 at 7:26 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 22, 2013 at 7:30 | |||||
| Nov 2, 2013 at 4:42 | audit | Reopen votes | |||
| Nov 2, 2013 at 4:43 | |||||
| Oct 28, 2013 at 2:19 | audit | First posts | |||
| Oct 28, 2013 at 2:19 | |||||
| Oct 24, 2013 at 21:55 | history | edited | newzad | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 516 characters in body |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 21:01 | answer | added | Eric Jablow | timeline score: 6 | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 19:29 | comment | added | newzad | @CodyPiersall yes exactly. but I don't say no for iterative solutions. You understand me. | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 19:25 | comment | added | Cody Piersall | Are you looking for algorithms that aren't iterative? | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 17:08 | answer | added | Vicfred | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 17:03 | history | edited | Jyrki Lahtonen | edited tags | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 17:02 | answer | added | Lubin | timeline score: 5 | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 16:51 | answer | added | Ashot | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 15:13 | comment | added | LarsH | See also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/222364/… | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 14:56 | history | edited | newzad | CC BY-SA 3.0 | edited title |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 12:37 | comment | added | r3mainer | On a slight tangent, there is a remarkably efficient way of approximating inverse square roots described here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0x5f3759df | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 11:15 | history | edited | newzad | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 294 characters in body |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 11:00 | comment | added | lhf | Define primitive. Newton's method in this case is as simple as it gets. See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_computing_square_roots. | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 10:48 | answer | added | Ömer | timeline score: 7 | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 10:41 | answer | added | Gottfried Helms | timeline score: 42 | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 10:40 | answer | added | gammatester | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 10:40 | answer | added | Old John | timeline score: 22 | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 10:40 | answer | added | littleO | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 10:39 | comment | added | newzad | @bluesh34 or Newton method. But I am looking more primitive techniques. I should say so. | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 10:37 | comment | added | George Tomlinson | How about the bisection method? | |
| Oct 24, 2013 at 10:36 | history | asked | newzad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |