Which is why I differentiated between square roots and the principle square root by saying the square roots instead of the square root on the second comment.
There’s no reason to bring the quadratic formula into this. Square roots can be negative, but when talking about the square root it’s normally assumed to be the principal square root, which is the positive one.
When all you have is an imaginary hammer, everything looks like a rotation around the imaginary unit circle.
Explanation of maths
x = -10, i = √-1 so i² = -1 and 10i²=-10
Found the math but no explanation.
The squareroot of 100 is ±10.
The square root is always positive, but you can plug it into the quadratic formula to get the two possible values.
Okay, fine the square roots of 100 are ±10.
That’s not how the square root is defined.
You’re confusing “square root of 100” with “the answer to x^2 = 100”. These are different things.
Which is why I differentiated between square roots and the principle square root by saying the square roots instead of the square root on the second comment.
so you came up with your own term to cover your mistake?
Nope, everything they said is well established and correct
No, I was being pedantic to appease the pedantic assholes.
There’s no reason to bring the quadratic formula into this. Square roots can be negative, but when talking about the square root it’s normally assumed to be the principal square root, which is the positive one.
Nope. To clarify, square roots are the opposite of squaring.
Now ask yourself:
What is 10² ?
What is (-10)² ?
If you get the same answer, then they are both the roots of the answer. +10 and -10 then gets together called ±10