Your version of the square root is an approximation, just like Newton's Method.
There really isn't that much difference except that Newton's converges quicker.
Your method makes the best guess, digit by digit, without going over, Newton's
allows it to oscillate, but converges quicker.

If you think there's some deep difference between the two, feel free to explain,
but your ranting so far have only shown that you haven't a clue.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffie, read the damn thing. It is NOT an approximation except for the very
last digit calculated.

*IF* you had the education you *claim* you have you would have known this
before you got out of high school (no college allows totally ignorant science
clowns to take physics class past the first semester, if they let them take
any
at all) AND ...

... you could understand the explanations given on the sites.

dude, that stuff was taught to every last college bound high school student in
the land, at least the sq rt calc (and theory) was. the cb rt calc (same
theory as sq rt) was more cumbersome (you will seen that *if* you even try to
understand it) and really had not practical utility for anyone who understood
what a log table is.

in fact, newton's ***approximation*** (and a damned cumbersome one until
electronic calc became widely available. most people who needed nth rt calcs
regularly owned a set of log tables.

jeffies, your ignorance astounds me. (Kriste, dude, you dont even know what
the
word "algebraic" means) The fact that you keep wishing to tell the world
again
and again and again how ignorant you are astounds me even more.

geesh dude. I set a simple trap for you and you jump in with both feet,
claiming you _like_ the feeling of steel jaws around your ankles.

Please explain why your method for square roots (not yours, actually, you
only
posted a link to it, I'm sure you never read it) is substantially different
from
the Newton's Method for solving higher roots. Both iterate, making
successively
closer approximations. The only difference is that the traditional
"longhand"
methods you linked to avoid estimating larger than the answer, thus it takes
more iterations to work. When its decomposed, it reveals manipulations
similar
to Newton's, but less effectively.

Your claim that the "high school" method is "algebraic" while Newton's is
something different is simply nonsense. Further, while you were able to post
links to algorithms for square and cubed roots, I provided and explained the
fourth root, which I've actually used professionally.




"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies will twist in the wind for days trying to figure out how to google
the
info on algebraicly calc'ing 4th roots

Already he is posting info about companies that failed in the early 1990's,
and
another company that suceeded in the 1990's to show that something
available
in
the 1950's didn't exist. If I asked him what a "flop" is in the context he
is
using he would turn eight shades of red (hint jeffies, google "giga-flop"
and
see what you get).

so let me put that dog jeffies out of his misery.

jeffies, it is mathematically impossible to calculate algebraicly the nth
root
for any n higher than 3.

if you had the background to even attempt to try to get the degree in
physics
you claim you have, you would have known that long before you started
college.

I did. and there was no google in those days.

now, jeffies, go mutter.