Talk:Perfect square

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Untitled[edit]

The .gif animation doesn't seem to work. Is it just me? 138.38.32.84 13:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not you. The gif does not work!!

Perfect squares can also be written as: 0+1=1, 1+3=4; 4+5=9; 9+7=16, ... This is similar to the Fibonaci series where the answer is then added to another to get the next in the series. In this case, we are adding the next odd number (2x+1). How would this be written in series form? " an_{Subscript text}+(2n+1) using the set of whole numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3,... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.63.91 (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General algorithm in number theory[edit]

It'd be nice to list the other methods to quickly rule a number out as a perfect square (probably using lists of acceptable remainders with different moduli). Is there a way to prove an integer is a square without computing the square root?

Also a link to Fermat factorization would be useful, determing squares is fundamental to it.

Better way of expressing this?[edit]

"an integer which is the square of some other integer, i.e. can be written in the form n2 for some integer n (and because of this a square is always nonnegative). Thus a perfect square always has a square root that has no decimal expansion."

Could this not be better explained as:

"an integer whose square root is also an integer"

Or would am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.180.144 (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambig[edit]

User:Zazou converted this page to a disambiguation. Since this is a major change which might otherwise be controversial I wanted to mention I agree with the change, though someone may want to check for old material to be merged into square number. As a dab page, it now has more information on it that before. In my book, that is a good indication the change was justified. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages?[edit]

There are two references here, to "perfect square trinomials" and "Perfect Square (algebra)." The perfect square trinomials are simply a subset of all algebraic perfect squares - should there really be two listings? Unless it is for the sake of math students doing homework...DonaNobisPacem (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]