Square Roots
Learning goals
- Undo squaring to find the side of a square from its area
- Explain why the radical sign returns only the non-negative root
- Read off the roots of perfect squares up to
- Pull a perfect-square factor out with for non-negative and
- Trap an imperfect root between neighboring perfect squares
- Say why is irrational and best left exact
Squaring, and undoing it
Squaring a number means multiplying it by itself. The results, starting from , are the perfect squares:
A perfect square is any whole number you can reach by squaring a positive whole number, so are the first ten of them. The square root of a number asks the reverse question. Given a number, what do you square to get it? The square root of is , because . The square root of is , because .
We write a square root with the radical sign . The number tucked under it is called the radicand. So
read aloud as “the square root of twenty-five is five.” Squaring and square-rooting are inverse operations: on numbers that are zero or more, each one undoes the other. Square to get , then take the square root of and you are back to . Starting from a negative number the round trip does not bring it back. Squaring gives , and the square root of is , not . In general the square root of is the size of , which means with any minus sign dropped.
Because the radical undoes the square, the two cancel when you stack them. Start from : the radical hands back the number that was squared, so . You never need the middle step of working out that is and then rooting instead. Stacking them in the other order lands in the same place, since . So for any non-negative number ,
Why the root is the non-negative one
There is a subtlety hiding in the question “what squares to ?” The obvious answer is . But also works, because a negative times a negative is positive:
So two different numbers, and , both square to . If the radical sign returned both, then would not name a single number, and you could not safely write it inside a calculation. To keep the square root a single, well-defined value, mathematicians make a choice: the radical sign always returns the non-negative root. This chosen value is called the principal square root.
Why is defined as the non-negative root#
Start with and ask which numbers square to give it. One of them is , since , and its opposite works just as well:
So has two square roots, and , one positive and one negative. That is a problem for notation: a symbol standing for and at the same time could not be used in an equation. You would never know which value was meant. The fix is to single out one of the pair by a fixed rule. So is defined to mean , the member that is not negative. The other root is still available, written separately as .
Nothing in that argument depended on the number being . Take any positive number . If some number satisfies , then its opposite also works, because
The solutions again come in a matched pair, so we define to be the member that is zero or positive. With that rule the symbol names exactly one number every time, and the negative solution is written as when it is wanted.
The one number whose root needs no choice is itself: since , we have .
Check your understanding
What is the principal (non-negative) square root ?
Ask what non-negative number squares to .
The radical sign returns the principal (non-negative) root, so the answer is alone, not and not . And it is certainly not : a square root is not half the number.
Roots of perfect squares
When the radicand is a perfect square, the root is a whole number, and you find it by recognizing which number was squared. It pays to know the first several perfect squares by sight, because then their roots come for free:
Reading the table from the bottom row up gives you the square root directly. Since sits under , you know . Since sits under , you know .
In the figure below you set the two sides of a rectangle, and the readout counts the unit squares it holds.
Make the width and the height equal and you have built a square, so its area is one side multiplied by itself. Step that square up from by and you will generate the start of the table above (, then , , , ). In each of those squares, the side length is the root of the area. Then break the equality on purpose: set the rectangle wide and tall, and its area of lands between two perfect squares. Those squares are and , and that trapping is exactly how this lesson later estimates a root that is not a whole number.
Why the side of a square is the root of its area
A rectangle 3 units wide and 3 units tall. Area 9 square units. The sides are equal, so this is a square and its side 3 is the square root of 9.
Worked example 1 Evaluate and
For each one, find the whole number that squares to the radicand.
For , search the perfect squares for . Since ,
For , since ,
Squaring each answer lands back on its radicand: and , both correct.
The product of two perfect squares is itself a perfect square, and its root is the product of the roots. For instance because and .
The product rule for square roots
Square roots of a product can be split apart. For non-negative numbers and ,
This is true because squaring the right-hand side returns . So the right-hand side is the non-negative number whose square is , which is exactly what means.
Why for non-negative and #
Take the radicands and first. Their roots are and , so the product of the roots is , and squaring that product puts both radicands back:
So is a number that is not negative and squares to . The symbol means exactly that, the non-negative number whose square is , and only one such number can fit. So , and since that says .
The only thing that argument used was the squaring, not the particular radicands. Let and be zero or positive, so that and both exist and are non-negative. Look at the product and square it. Multiplication can be reordered freely, so
So is a number that squares to . It is also non-negative, because a product of two non-negative numbers is non-negative. But the non-negative number whose square is is precisely what the symbol stands for. Two non-negative numbers with the same square must be equal, so
Division splits the same way: , provided is zero or more and is greater than zero. The same squaring argument carries it, since . So a quotient of square roots combines or splits just like a product.
This rule lets you simplify a root by pulling out any perfect-square factor hiding inside the radicand. The trick is to split the radicand into a perfect square times whatever is left.
Worked example 2 Simplify
The number is not a perfect square, but it contains the perfect-square factor , since . Split the radical with the product rule:
Now is a whole number, while has no perfect-square factor to pull out, so it stays as it is:
The form is considered simpler because the largest perfect square has been taken out from under the radical. Always pull out the largest perfect-square factor. Had you used you would make no progress, since is a perfect square but removing it changes nothing.
Check your understanding
Simplify by pulling out the largest perfect-square factor.
Find the largest perfect square that divides . Since and is a perfect square, split the radical.
The comes out, and stays because has no perfect-square factor.
Estimating roots that are not whole numbers
Most radicands are not perfect squares, so their roots are not whole numbers. You can still pin a root down closely by trapping it between the two perfect squares it falls between. Take . The perfect squares on either side of are and :
Taking the square root of all three keeps the order, because a bigger number has a bigger root:
You can say more: since is much closer to than to , its root sits close to , just a little above it. A trial check pins it down, because is already slightly over , so is a bit under , around .
The method is general: to estimate any square root, find the nearest perfect square below the radicand and the nearest one above it. The root lies between their two whole-number roots, and it leans toward whichever perfect square the radicand is closer to.
Worked example 3 Between which two whole numbers does lie?
Hunt for the perfect squares that bracket . Counting up the squares, sits just below , and is the next one above:
Take the square root across the inequality, which preserves the order:
So lies between and . Because is only just past , the root is very close to (in fact about ).
Check your understanding
Between which two consecutive whole numbers does lie?
Find the perfect squares on either side of . The square is just below, and is just above.
So lies between and . (It is closer to , since sits roughly midway between and .)
Why most square roots are irrational
When you estimate you can keep refining: , then , then , and the decimal never settles and never falls into a repeating pattern. A square root of a whole number that is not a perfect square is an irrational number. Its decimal expansion runs on forever without ever repeating, so it can never be written exactly as a fraction or as a terminating decimal.
You met this idea when fractions and decimals were compared. A fraction always turns into a decimal that either stops or repeats, while an irrational number does neither. Numbers like and are the classic examples. The impossibility can be proved, as the Greeks first did for (the history below tells that story). This is why we usually leave such a root in its exact radical form, writing rather than a rounded decimal.