Content deleted Content added
Line 279:
Is it just me, or are there others who think that the Vedic method can be bettered by some exposition. While the algorithmic side is substantial, I am at loss on why it even works. ([[User:Manoguru|Manoguru]] ([[User talk:Manoguru|talk]]) 03:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC))
:I am of the opinion less would be better as it isn't very notable, it is just someones idea in a book. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 10:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
::Your idea of notability is quite strange, since every algorithm is from someone's book or paper. I myself think that it is a remarkably easier algorithm for digit-by-digit calculation compared to the usual long division method. My elementary school math would have been much easier if this method had been taught. It exploits the fact that it is easier to multiply two single digit numbers than multiple digit numbers. Today I read up a few external links related to this method, and here is my summary of it. We proceed as with the digit-by-digit calculation by assuming that we want to express a number ''N'' as a square of the sum of ''n'' positive numbers as
:::<math>N = (a_0 + a_1 + \ldots + a_{n-1})^2.</math>
::The right side of this expression can be expanded as
| |||