Content deleted Content added
→Regarding Vedic Method: towards improvement |
|||
Line 297:
:::Personally I see very little point in going into the system in detail. I mean why do you want to learn off by heart a quicker way of doing square roots by hand? Does it confer greater understanding? You said you didn't find it obvious. Is it useful? I think it is worth showing students how to do things by hand but learning a more complicated algorithm which is faster is not a real gain when they'd use calculators if they really needed to know the result without error. I think it should just be described in the sort of detail given for the other methods, this isn't a how to manual. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 15:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
::::The flaw in this argument is that all the algorithms are done by hand before people can trust it for machine implementation. If hand computation yields faster results, then so will the machine implementation. For instance, the digit-by-digit square root method for binary strings is often implemented in computers. Also for much of history, the Babylonian method was done by hand. That being said, I agree with the last point that you make. A concise description of the duplex method is not given and one example would have been sufficient. But I don't dare make the edits myself, lest I incite edit wars. ([[User:Manoguru|Manoguru]] ([[User talk:Manoguru|talk]]) 04:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC))
:::::Mainly it is the amount of space that is given to it that I feel is undue. And even at that it has very little about the method, just examples. If a couple of the examples were replaced by a better explanation that would be an overall gain I think. An encyclopaedia should tell about things, not train you in doing them. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 12:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
| |||