Theoretically, all the options are correct. The question does not say it has to be the sum of two perfect square numbers. For example, 16=1² +(√ 15)² , 49=(√23 )² +(√26 )² . The list goes on.

Theoretically, all the options are correct. The question does not say it has to be the sum of two perfect square numbers. For example, 16=1² +(√ 15)² , 49=(√23 )² +(√26 )² . The list goes on.

@bowlchamps37 Again with the pedantry. Stick to football, man. All those head impacts and concussions aren't doing much for your intellect. I'm not just saying that. Concussions are a common football injury and causes brain damage.

@bowlchamps37 Again with the pedantry. Stick to football, man. All those head impacts and concussions aren't doing much for your intellect. I'm not just saying that. Concussions are a common football injury and causes brain damage.

@rohitchaoji No, it´s about telling you that you look like a fool if you ever used perfect square number. It´s not just a word you add but you completely botch a mathematical term. Imagine you go somewhere with your dad and a tell another person "This is my "daddy father parent man". And also telling you that OP is still wrong.

@rohitchaoji No, it´s about telling you that you look like a fool if you ever used perfect square number. It´s not just a word you add but you completely botch a mathematical term. Imagine you go somewhere with your dad and a tell another person "This is my "daddy father parent man". And also telling you that OP is still wrong.

@Lendz Elliott Yes, I know. I was just quoting some other guy with the QUOTE "5 = √5 * √5. 5 is an integer. 16 = 5 + 9. 16 =√5*√5 + √9*√9"<br>It´s also not the genereally accepted definition but the only definition.

@Lendz Elliott Yes, I know. I was just quoting some other guy with the QUOTE "5 = √5 * √5. 5 is an integer. 16 = 5 + 9. 16 =√5*√5 + √9*√9"
It´s also not the genereally accepted definition but the only definition.

@bowlchamps37 In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer; in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 3*3 and can be written as 3 × 3. This is the generally accepted definition of a Square Number.

@bowlchamps37 In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer; in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 3*3 and can be written as 3 × 3. This is the generally accepted definition of a Square Number.

@bowlchamps37 Again, being nitpicky and pedantic about adding an extra term when what they meant should be pretty obvious to someone not trying to be nitpicky and pedantic.

@bowlchamps37 Again, being nitpicky and pedantic about adding an extra term when what they meant should be pretty obvious to someone not trying to be nitpicky and pedantic.

To all the idiots who believe that any answer is correct: Have you idiots really never wondered  why no mathematician made a claim that the question was wrongly worded and has multiple possible answers? Never wondered why, if the question was wrongly phrased, the contestant never came back to get a correct question?

To all the idiots who believe that any answer is correct: Have you idiots really never wondered  why no mathematician made a claim that the question was wrongly worded and has multiple possible answers? Never wondered why, if the question was wrongly phrased, the contestant never came back to get a correct question?

@TheCelestialFox Dude, I hope Boeing did not make the mistake to hire an ignorant fool like you.

@TheCelestialFox Dude, I hope Boeing did not make the mistake to hire an ignorant fool like you.

@rohitchaoji Because in maths, there is no such thing called "perfect square number". It´s either perfect square or perfect number. And OP is still incorrect since a square number is always made from an integer.

@rohitchaoji Because in maths, there is no such thing called "perfect square number". It´s either perfect square or perfect number. And OP is still incorrect since a square number is always made from an integer.

@Lendz Elliott Never ever do you have a PHD in mathematics and come up with this crap 5 = √5 * √5. 5 is an integer. 16 = 5 + 9. 16 =√5*√5 + √9*√9

@Lendz Elliott Never ever do you have a PHD in mathematics and come up with this crap 5 = √5 * √5. 5 is an integer. 16 = 5 + 9. 16 =√5*√5 + √9*√9

jfc this is long, I literally just scrolled down to the bottom to save myself from reading all that lmao. I'm pretty sure they teach square numbers in like year 6 or something lmao

jfc this is long, I literally just scrolled down to the bottom to save myself from reading all that lmao. I'm pretty sure they teach square numbers in like year 6 or something lmao

@D D I don't believe after 3 years, youtube recommends this video to me. I have seen this entire comment section and yea, I know people can be that ignorant and stupid, and I have a good laugh about it. The summary is: TheCelestialFox use HIS OWN DEFINITION of square number to argue, while this term actually already has a clear and precise definition in mathematics that differ entirely with his assumed to be true definition lol. D D has already tried multiple times to give this guy a refference regarding the correct mathermatical definition, but TheCelestialFox (being a troll) doesn't even read that refference and still arguing that his own definition of square number should be the correct one xD

@D D I don't believe after 3 years, youtube recommends this video to me. I have seen this entire comment section and yea, I know people can be that ignorant and stupid, and I have a good laugh about it. The summary is: TheCelestialFox use HIS OWN DEFINITION of square number to argue, while this term actually already has a clear and precise definition in mathematics that differ entirely with his assumed to be true definition lol. D D has already tried multiple times to give this guy a refference regarding the correct mathermatical definition, but TheCelestialFox (being a troll) doesn't even read that refference and still arguing that his own definition of square number should be the correct one xD

@D D So, you're just being nitpicky and pedantic about adding the word "number" after Perfect Square? Doesn't make OP's point incorrect.

@D D So, you're just being nitpicky and pedantic about adding the word "number" after Perfect Square? Doesn't make OP's point incorrect.

@D D hats off to you, this argument was legendary. There is literally no way to convince overconfident idiots.

@D D hats off to you, this argument was legendary. There is literally no way to convince overconfident idiots.

Никита Морозов

@Ayush Mishra oh genius, I already replied I didn't read the question properly to DD and told I was mistaken.

@Ayush Mishra oh genius, I already replied I didn't read the question properly to DD and told I was mistaken.

@D D hats off to you. I am surprised by the fact that so many people don't know basic maths.

@D D hats off to you. I am surprised by the fact that so many people don't know basic maths.

@ArkenLegend oh genius, you need to add two smaller squares to get that square number. 16 is not less than 16

@ArkenLegend oh genius, you need to add two smaller squares to get that square number. 16 is not less than 16

@Surbhi Maheshwari I value his points and am disgusted by the way you talk.

@Surbhi Maheshwari I value his points and am disgusted by the way you talk.

@TheCelestialFox lol bro what's your problem? A square number is of form n*n where n is an integer

@TheCelestialFox lol bro what's your problem? A square number is of form n*n where n is an integer

@TheCelestialFox a square number is indeed same as a perfect square

@TheCelestialFox a square number is indeed same as a perfect square

@Salti Dawg ok dumb. A square number is of form n*n where n is an integer

@Salti Dawg ok dumb. A square number is of form n*n where n is an integer

i wouldnt be surprised if bigmoist makes a video on this thread

i wouldnt be surprised if bigmoist makes a video on this thread

@TheCelestialFox The numbers you are citing (square root of 15, pi, etc.) are irrational, not rational. Quite the different thing

@TheCelestialFox The numbers you are citing (square root of 15, pi, etc.) are irrational, not rational. Quite the different thing

No need to involve irrational numbers. 16 = 5.76 + 10.24, and 5.76 = 2.4^2 and 10.24 = 3.2^2. It will work with the other numbers too, all I did to get 2.4 and 3.2 was multiply 3 and 4 by 4/5. You can get 2 non-integer but rational numbers that add to 36 and 49 by using 6/5 and 7/5 in the same way. So for instance 18/5 is 3.6 and 24/5 is 4.8, so 12.96 and 23.04 are 2 square numbers that add to 36. And that would follow the actual definition of a square number, as the square roots are rational.

No need to involve irrational numbers. 16 = 5.76 + 10.24, and 5.76 = 2.4^2 and 10.24 = 3.2^2. It will work with the other numbers too, all I did to get 2.4 and 3.2 was multiply 3 and 4 by 4/5. You can get 2 non-integer but rational numbers that add to 36 and 49 by using 6/5 and 7/5 in the same way. So for instance 18/5 is 3.6 and 24/5 is 4.8, so 12.96 and 23.04 are 2 square numbers that add to 36. And that would follow the actual definition of a square number, as the square roots are rational.

@D D Respect, dude. I wouldn't have lasted so long without calling him a retard. I once engaged in a similar conversation about the cardinality of the set of real numbers. Never again.

@D D Respect, dude. I wouldn't have lasted so long without calling him a retard. I once engaged in a similar conversation about the cardinality of the set of real numbers. Never again.

People arguing against @D D in here probably also think 'adjective word' is legit terminology.

People arguing against @D D in here probably also think 'adjective word' is legit terminology.

@TigerGold 59 All of the answers can't be correct. In your example, you have 0^2 + 4^2 = 4^2 and it's not correct because the question states that the number needs to be the sum of two SMALLER square numbers. your answer is not correct because 4^2 is not smaller than 4^2.

@TigerGold 59 All of the answers can't be correct. In your example, you have 0^2 + 4^2 = 4^2 and it's not correct because the question states that the number needs to be the sum of two SMALLER square numbers. your answer is not correct because 4^2 is not smaller than 4^2.

@D D this is hilarious, all these comments pissed me off so much when reading them. the funniest thing to me was that people who clearly have no fucking idea what they're talking about equated rational numbers and integers, even TheCelestialFox who claimed to have a CompSci degree. thank you for pushing back on them lol. Also, someone probably already said this but all the answers are correct: they're all the squares of integers and so is 0. 0^2 + 4^2 = 16^2. you could use a slightly different definition and say a square number n is an integer for which there exists a square with n as its area and another integer, sqrt(n), as its side length. then since a shape with side length 0 has no vertices and no angles, a square with side length 0 does not exist and 0 is not a square number.

@D D this is hilarious, all these comments pissed me off so much when reading them. the funniest thing to me was that people who clearly have no fucking idea what they're talking about equated rational numbers and integers, even TheCelestialFox who claimed to have a CompSci degree. thank you for pushing back on them lol. Also, someone probably already said this but all the answers are correct: they're all the squares of integers and so is 0. 0^2 + 4^2 = 16^2. you could use a slightly different definition and say a square number n is an integer for which there exists a square with n as its area and another integer, sqrt(n), as its side length. then since a shape with side length 0 has no vertices and no angles, a square with side length 0 does not exist and 0 is not a square number.

@Sounak Roy you're confusing square numbers and squareD numbers...

A square number is a number that, when squared, gives an integer.

So no, the question didn't meant to say squared numbers, it meant to say exactly what it said : square number, aka perfect square.

@Sounak Roy you're confusing square numbers and squareD numbers...

A square number is a number that, when squared, gives an integer.

So no, the question didn't meant to say squared numbers, it meant to say exactly what it said : square number, aka perfect square.

That’s just a smartass comment, you know what the question was, ffs

That’s just a smartass comment, you know what the question was, ffs

@D D Hi there, you still active?
Well actually all options in the question was true because 0 is also a square number and we can write smth like this:
16=16+0=4^2+0^2
25=25+0=5^2+0^2
36=36+0=6^2+0^2
49=49+0=7^2+0^2

@D D Hi there, you still active?
Well actually all options in the question was true because 0 is also a square number and we can write smth like this:
16=16+0=4^2+0^2
25=25+0=5^2+0^2
36=36+0=6^2+0^2
49=49+0=7^2+0^2

The question meant to say squared numbers. Numbers which are squared are basically squared numbers. It can be anything. You can square integers to get a square number. Square any irrational or rational even complex. Since the question just specifies the word "numbers"  it can be any number in the realm of computable numbers. If the question was like that, "Which of these squared integers also happen to be the square of two smaller integers?", then only one answer. Option B.

The question meant to say squared numbers. Numbers which are squared are basically squared numbers. It can be anything. You can square integers to get a square number. Square any irrational or rational even complex. Since the question just specifies the word "numbers"  it can be any number in the realm of computable numbers. If the question was like that, "Which of these squared integers also happen to be the square of two smaller integers?", then only one answer. Option B.

Вы продолжаете эту дискуссию спустя 3 года? Ютуб рекомендации умеет ссорить людей.

Вы продолжаете эту дискуссию спустя 3 года? Ютуб рекомендации умеет ссорить людей.

@Abdalla Ahmed but the question wasn't about square roots or numbers that can be squared, it's specifically about square numbers...

@Abdalla Ahmed but the question wasn't about square roots or numbers that can be squared, it's specifically about square numbers...

No? 15 is not a square number, nor is his square root, so hmm...

No? 15 is not a square number, nor is his square root, so hmm...

3.4K likes because they don’t do math. 3^2+4^2 are the smallest ones. 1^2 and sqrt of 15^2 are not the smallest. 15 is way larger than 4

3.4K likes because they don’t do math. 3^2+4^2 are the smallest ones. 1^2 and sqrt of 15^2 are not the smallest. 15 is way larger than 4

@TheCelestialFox  you are the one who doesn't understand basic math. Heres a list of what you got wrong.

Whole numbers and integers are not the same thing. Whole numbers go from 0 to infinity while integers go from negative infinity to infinity.

Squaring a non-integer does not always give another non-integer.
The square root of 2 is a non-integer, specifically, an irrational number. Squaring it gives you an integer, more specifically, 2.

Lastly, by your definition of "square number," all real numbers numbers are square numbers. This absoloutely defeats the point of calling it a square number in the first place. You would literally be able to call pi a square number.
I see the logic in calling a number that is squared a square number, but you do not make the definitions, and the definitions plural collectively say a square number is the square of an integer.

@TheCelestialFox  you are the one who doesn't understand basic math. Heres a list of what you got wrong.

Whole numbers and integers are not the same thing. Whole numbers go from 0 to infinity while integers go from negative infinity to infinity.

Squaring a non-integer does not always give another non-integer.
The square root of 2 is a non-integer, specifically, an irrational number. Squaring it gives you an integer, more specifically, 2.

Lastly, by your definition of "square number," all real numbers numbers are square numbers. This absoloutely defeats the point of calling it a square number in the first place. You would literally be able to call pi a square number.
I see the logic in calling a number that is squared a square number, but you do not make the definitions, and the definitions plural collectively say a square number is the square of an integer.

yeah, but only one answer should be correct. it means that numbers are integers

yeah, but only one answer should be correct. it means that numbers are integers

@D D No no I didn't meant you are arguing with people from 3 years ago. I meant you were arguing 3 years ago with TheCelestialFox and some others who won't even try to understand what you were saying. It was not worth it to argue with such people.

@D D No no I didn't meant you are arguing with people from 3 years ago. I meant you were arguing 3 years ago with TheCelestialFox and some others who won't even try to understand what you were saying. It was not worth it to argue with such people.

@Aditya Singh I am not arguing with people from 3y ago, I just answered to one guy who commented few days ago. I actually didn't get any notifications for two full years until now and completely forgot about this discussion. Fun times. Thanks for agreeing with me though, you are the man.

@Aditya Singh I am not arguing with people from 3y ago, I just answered to one guy who commented few days ago. I actually didn't get any notifications for two full years until now and completely forgot about this discussion. Fun times. Thanks for agreeing with me though, you are the man.

@D D Lol dude you were right this whole time and still people were arguing with you. I used to think I am bad at math but when I saw the comments arguing on your correct defination of a "square number" I realised that I am smarter than so many people. I remember a question asked during my 6th grade or so, "How many square numbers are there between 1 and 100". The correct answer to this question was 9 but according to the people arguing with you there are 99 square numbers between 1 and 100. Btw why were you even arguing with such dumb heads 3 years ago. Someone has said it right "It's hard to win an argument against a genius, but it's impossible to win an argument against an idiot."

@D D Lol dude you were right this whole time and still people were arguing with you. I used to think I am bad at math but when I saw the comments arguing on your correct defination of a "square number" I realised that I am smarter than so many people. I remember a question asked during my 6th grade or so, "How many square numbers are there between 1 and 100". The correct answer to this question was 9 but according to the people arguing with you there are 99 square numbers between 1 and 100. Btw why were you even arguing with such dumb heads 3 years ago. Someone has said it right "It's hard to win an argument against a genius, but it's impossible to win an argument against an idiot."

@D D oh shit. Yeah you are right. The question is correct

@D D oh shit. Yeah you are right. The question is correct

@ArkenLegend Actually, now that I think about it, you are not correct. I knew it 3 years ago that the question was precisely asked and that multiple answers weren't possible, but I forgot about it for a moment.

So the question states that we are looking for a square number that is a sum of two SMALLER square numbers. That's why you cannot have 0 + 16 = 16, since 16 is not smaller than 16.

@ArkenLegend Actually, now that I think about it, you are not correct. I knew it 3 years ago that the question was precisely asked and that multiple answers weren't possible, but I forgot about it for a moment.

So the question states that we are looking for a square number that is a sum of two SMALLER square numbers. That's why you cannot have 0 + 16 = 16, since 16 is not smaller than 16.

@ArkenLegend Thanks for reminding me about this comment section lmao.

I won't say you are wrong though. I've googled perfect square and the definition usually uses "integers multiplied by itself" which would mean 0 is a perfect square as well, but when I google the list of perfect squares, 0 is usually excluded.

I was so interested that I've sent an e-mail to one of my professors at uni who is actually one of the leading experts in number theory field.

Basically, the conclusion is that this question should've had "positive square numbers" in it's wording, so there wouldn't technically be any other answers.

@ArkenLegend Thanks for reminding me about this comment section lmao.

I won't say you are wrong though. I've googled perfect square and the definition usually uses "integers multiplied by itself" which would mean 0 is a perfect square as well, but when I google the list of perfect squares, 0 is usually excluded.

I was so interested that I've sent an e-mail to one of my professors at uni who is actually one of the leading experts in number theory field.

Basically, the conclusion is that this question should've had "positive square numbers" in it's wording, so there wouldn't technically be any other answers.

@TheCelestialFox  SO U LOVE IGNORING THE DEFINITIONS. HERE IS THE DEFINITION STRAIGHT FROM WIKIPEDIA:
In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.

I NEED TO MAKE SURE U SEE THIS YOU BOZO. INTEGER KEY WORD. HOPEFULLY YOUR TINY BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.

@TheCelestialFox  SO U LOVE IGNORING THE DEFINITIONS. HERE IS THE DEFINITION STRAIGHT FROM WIKIPEDIA:
In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.

I NEED TO MAKE SURE U SEE THIS YOU BOZO. INTEGER KEY WORD. HOPEFULLY YOUR TINY BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.

@TheCelestialFox SO U LOVE IGNORING THE DEFINITIONS. HERE IS THE DEFINITION STRAIGHT FROM WIKIPEDIA:
In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.

I NEED TO MAKE SURE U SEE THIS YOU BOZO. INTEGER KEY WORD. HOPEFULLY YOUR TINY BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.

@TheCelestialFox SO U LOVE IGNORING THE DEFINITIONS. HERE IS THE DEFINITION STRAIGHT FROM WIKIPEDIA:
In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.

I NEED TO MAKE SURE U SEE THIS YOU BOZO. INTEGER KEY WORD. HOPEFULLY YOUR TINY BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.

@TheCelestialFox In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.

@TheCelestialFox In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.

@UCUwOV6Lq9RZiCrF1rFI21qw you are an idiot. First sentence of Wikipedia: “@ - “In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.”

@UCUwOV6Lq9RZiCrF1rFI21qw you are an idiot. First sentence of Wikipedia: “@ - “In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself. For example, 9 is a square number, since it equals 32 and can be written as 3 × 3.”

@D D LOL mans wants a metal for what? Subjecting yourself to this? U literally got into a semantics argument on the internet and expected to come out with a win. News flash, this is the internet. If you engage in an argument, that’s on you. Throw insults all you want, at the end of the day no ones gunna win.

@D D LOL mans wants a metal for what? Subjecting yourself to this? U literally got into a semantics argument on the internet and expected to come out with a win. News flash, this is the internet. If you engage in an argument, that’s on you. Throw insults all you want, at the end of the day no ones gunna win.

@MuffinsAPlenty sounds about right, I was never much of a number theorist though. I think we can safely say you chose B.

@MuffinsAPlenty sounds about right, I was never much of a number theorist though. I think we can safely say you chose B.

Colin Java - Yeah, and the same thing goes for a lot of terminology that Euclid defined: multiple, even number, odd number, prime number, composite number, square number, and perfect number. If we tried to expand their definitions to the set of all real or complex numbers, these would all be meaningless terminology, since in most cases, every number would satisfy the definition or no number would satisfy the definition.

No number would be a prime number since every number would be divisible by every (nonzero) number. 3 would be an "even number" since 3 can be divided by 2. Maybe TheCelestialFox would say that 3 is an even number, but not a perfect even number.

This sort of thing happens all the time in mathematics: there are adjectives that can be defined algebraically in very abstract settings. For example, you can define the notion of "prime" element in any commutative semi-ring. You can define the notion of "algebraic element" in any field extension. You can define the notion of "square" in any semi-ring. But when we tack on the word "number", we often restrict it to the original context in which it was defined, which is often the broadest meaningful context when dealing with the common number sets. "Prime number" is a prime element in the commutative semi-ring of natural numbers, and it would lose all meaning when extended to the rational numbers or higher. "Algebraic number" is an algebraic element in field extension of the complex numbers over the rational numbers, and would lose all meaning if the base field were extended. And "square number" is a square element of the ring of integers, and it would lose all meaning if we extended it to the real numbers or complex numbers.

Colin Java - Yeah, and the same thing goes for a lot of terminology that Euclid defined: multiple, even number, odd number, prime number, composite number, square number, and perfect number. If we tried to expand their definitions to the set of all real or complex numbers, these would all be meaningless terminology, since in most cases, _every_ number would satisfy the definition or _no_ number would satisfy the definition.

No number would be a prime number since every number would be divisible by every (nonzero) number. 3 would be an "even number" since 3 can be divided by 2. Maybe TheCelestialFox would say that 3 is an even number, but not a perfect even number.

This sort of thing happens all the time in mathematics: there are adjectives that can be defined algebraically in very abstract settings. For example, you can define the notion of "prime" element in any commutative semi-ring. You can define the notion of "algebraic element" in any field extension. You can define the notion of "square" in any semi-ring. But when we tack on the word "number", we often restrict it to the _original context_ in which it was defined, which is often the broadest meaningful context when dealing with the common number sets. "Prime number" is a prime element in the commutative semi-ring of natural numbers, and it would lose all meaning when extended to the rational numbers or higher. "Algebraic number" is an algebraic element in field extension of the complex numbers over the rational numbers, and would lose all meaning if the base field were extended. And "square number" is a square element of the ring of integers, and it would lose all meaning if we extended it to the real numbers or complex numbers.

@MuffinsAPlenty Exactly, his definition makes no sense cause every number is a square number if 15 is a square number.<br>You can say 15 is the square OF A number (sqrt 15), but its not a square number.

@MuffinsAPlenty Exactly, his definition makes no sense cause every number is a square number if 15 is a square number.
You can say 15 is the square OF A number (sqrt 15), but its not a square number.

@TheCelestialFox The issue is that you're giving your personal definition of the phrase "square number" and ignoring the well-established definition of "square number" that Euclid gave (Elements book VII, definition 18) and has been consistently used by mathematicians for the past 2000 years (there is no reason to expand the phrase's meaning to a more general concept of "number").

On a quiz show, terminology has meaning. You can't just make up your own meaning to the terminology, otherwise you could make the case that every answer is right to every question (just make up your own meaning for what the question means!).

@TheCelestialFox The issue is that you're giving your _personal_ definition of the phrase "square number" and ignoring the well-established definition of "square number" that Euclid gave (Elements book VII, definition 18) and has been consistently used by mathematicians for the past 2000 years (there is no reason to expand the phrase's meaning to a more general concept of "number").

On a quiz show, terminology has meaning. You can't just make up your own meaning to the terminology, otherwise you could make the case that every answer is right to every question (just make up your own meaning for what the question means!).

@زکی قاسم no, cause it says TWO smaller square numbers, but nice try

@زکی قاسم no, cause it says TWO smaller square numbers, but nice try

@Colin Java 1) You clear as day don't understand the differences between a perfect square and perfect square number vs. a square and square number. All of which I gave definitions for that you didn't see, forgot about, or chose to cherry pick and ignore. I'm not repeating it. Play Where's Waldo and find it since you're this invested.

2) Your claim that 15 is not a square number is absolutely false. It is 100% a square number of the decimal form of its root (√15 or 3.8729833462). Because this root is not a whole, rational number, it's NOT a PERFECT root which means 15 is not a PERFECT square. The other numbers you listed: 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, etc. are all squares AND perfect squares because their roots are whole, rational numbers. Every number has a square value. If you type in a calculator ANY arbitrary value and square it or square root it, you WILL receive a numeric value. This is why EVERY number is a square. HOWEVER, the only numbers that are considered a PERFECT square are the ones that result from a whole, rational number (meaning no fractions/decimals) being multiplied with itself. That's the distinction, use, and purpose of saying PERFECT square vs simply saying SQUARE. To add the term "number" at the end to make these terms perfect square NUMBER and square NUMBER is only a redundancy because of course these values are numbers. It's like asking on a math test "Is this irrational?" vs. "Is this an irrational number?"

3) Leave this god forsaken comment thread the hell alone. This whole thing is well over a year old. You're only trying to start an old fight anew and no once needs the headache. Drop it.

@TheCelestialFox you have the terms:
Square
Square number
Perfect square
Perfect square number
You're happy to omit "number" from perfect square number, but then you aren't happy to omit "number" from square number.
It's simple really, just take those 4 terms to mean square numbers, so 17 is not a square, no confusion now.

@TheCelestialFox you have the terms:
Square
Square number
Perfect square
Perfect square number
You're happy to omit "number" from perfect square number, but then you aren't happy to omit "number" from square number.
It's simple really, just take those 4 terms to mean square numbers, so 17 is not a square, no confusion now.

@D D you are right, they are the same thing.<br>I would never call 17 a square as it could be interpreted as a square number

@D D you are right, they are the same thing.
I would never call 17 a square as it could be interpreted as a square number

@TheCelestialFox you are just causing confusion by saying a square (in the context of numbers) is different to a square number.
When you say 17 is a square, it's ridiculous cause we take square as meaning square number.
I know 17 is the square of sqrt17, but it's really unpractical to go round saying 17 is a square.

@TheCelestialFox you are just causing confusion by saying a square (in the context of numbers) is different to a square number.
When you say 17 is a square, it's ridiculous cause we take square as meaning square number.
I know 17 is the square of sqrt17, but it's really unpractical to go round saying 17 is a square.

Nope, 15 will never be a square number until it is defined as one, and that's never gonna happen.
Square numbers are 1,4,9,16,25,...
Some might include 0, but that doesn't help you either.

Nope, 15 will never be a square number until it is defined as one, and that's never gonna happen.
Square numbers are 1,4,9,16,25,...
Some might include 0, but that doesn't help you either.

TheCelestialFox - You are simply wrong. Your main argument boils down to be that the phrase "square number" cannot mean something different from using the word "square" as a modifier for the word "number".  But this is incorrect.

The German Shepherd example is a perfect example.  Individually, the word "German" can refer to a citizen of Germany, and the word "Shepherd" can refer to someone who takes care of sheep.  If we put these two meanings together, "German Shepherd" refers to a citizen of Germany who takes care of sheep. But the phrase "German Shepherd" need not refer to a citizen of Germany who takes care of sheep; it most frequently refers to a breed of dog.

And that's the issue that you keep having. You keep arguing that the phrase "square number" cannot possibly have its own meaning as a phrase apart from combining the definitions of "square" and "number" individually.  As with the "German Shepherd" example, this is simply wrong.  The phrase "square number" refers to the "square of an integer."  People have provided you with plenty of references of this.  You kept ignoring these references and then stating your own opinion about what the phrase means. You're essentially arguing with the dictionary about the meaning of a word.

There's not much more to say. You are denying basic facts about mathematical terminology.

TheCelestialFox - You are simply wrong. Your main argument boils down to be that the phrase "square number" cannot mean something different from using the word "square" as a modifier for the word "number".  But this is incorrect.

The German Shepherd example is a perfect example.  Individually, the word "German" can refer to a citizen of Germany, and the word "Shepherd" can refer to someone who takes care of sheep.  If we put these two meanings together, "German Shepherd" refers to a citizen of Germany who takes care of sheep. But the phrase "German Shepherd" need not refer to a citizen of Germany who takes care of sheep; it most frequently refers to a breed of dog.

And that's the issue that you keep having. You keep arguing that the _phrase_ "square number" cannot possibly have its own meaning as a _phrase_ apart from combining the definitions of "square" and "number" individually.  As with the "German Shepherd" example, this is simply wrong.  The _phrase_ "square number" refers to the "square of an integer."  People have provided you with plenty of references of this.  You kept ignoring these references and then stating your own opinion about what the phrase means. You're essentially arguing with the dictionary about the meaning of a word.

There's not much more to say. You are denying basic facts about mathematical terminology.

@D D you are correct. people just want to sound smartass and say "ohhh the question is wrong lol"

@D D you are correct. people just want to sound smartass and say "ohhh the question is wrong lol"

wrong. square numbers must be squares of integers. your term "perfect square number" does not exist and you just made it up.

wrong. square numbers must be squares of integers. your term "perfect square number" does not exist and you just made it up.

You need to LEARN what "SQUARE NUMBERS" are. Look up the DEFINITION!

You need to LEARN what "SQUARE NUMBERS" are. Look up the DEFINITION!

TheCelestialFox I like apples, square apples

TheCelestialFox I like apples, square apples

yidingcao sorry if this has already been stated, I only read the first ~30 comments before it turned too cancerous.

Technically, the question is ambiguous because he didn’t specify which type of number he is looking for.

If instead the question read “which of these square integers happens to be the sum of two smaller square integers”, the only possible answer is B.

The question could of also read “which natural number happens to be the sum of two smaller natural numbers”, the ambiguity would be lost.

Better yet, if the question just said which of these perfect squares also happens to be.....bla, the ambiguity would once again be lost.
But since that was not the case, one could consider the set of real and/or complex numbers for all answers to be correct.

My guess is they used that type of language because most people wouldn’t think that deeply about it and would just assume the use of natural numbers or integers.

Alright so you guys can get your heads out of your ass I’m going to list off a bunch of perfect squares and squares spot the difference
Perfect Squares:1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,81,100
Squares:2,3,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15 etc
A perfect square is the square of a whole number, under certain circumstances a square can be a perfect if the the number being squared is a whole number. If the number is not a whole number it is simply a square.

Alright so you guys can get your heads out of your ass I’m going to list off a bunch of perfect squares and squares spot the difference
Perfect Squares:1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,81,100
Squares:2,3,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15 etc
A perfect square is the square of a whole number, under certain circumstances a square can be a perfect if the the number being squared is a whole number. If the number is not a whole number it is simply a square.

There’s no such thing as perfect square numbers. There’s perfect square or square numbers, which are numbers that can literally form a square taking every single unit as a point. These numbers are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25...

There’s no such thing as perfect square numbers. There’s perfect square or square numbers, which are numbers that can literally form a square taking every single unit as a point. These numbers are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25...

There are square numbers and then there are surds...think you need to relearn math.

There are square numbers and then there are surds...think you need to relearn math.

@Kubahognow I am going to guess that someone somewhere is going to say that √1=1 and stuff like that

@Kubahognow I am going to guess that someone somewhere is going to say that √1=1 and stuff like that

@D D he's an asian if he makes up an answer its right

@D D he's an asian if he makes up an answer its right

And this is why I hate all languages. Specifically the definitions of simple words turn into long debated arguments.

And this is why I hate all languages. Specifically the definitions of simple words turn into long debated arguments.

@Animes Lovers United i am assuming all of the numbers which will be infinity. If its only integers then 10.

@Animes Lovers United i am assuming all of the numbers which will be infinity. If its only integers then 10.

@carlito 123 actually they aren't''t aren't arguing about maths. They are arguing the language and the terms defined in Maths

@carlito 123 actually they aren't''t aren't arguing about maths. They are arguing the language and the terms defined in Maths

There’s always that one person that over complicates basic things... 😂

There’s always that one person that over complicates basic things... 😂

Hi. I was wondering if someone could explain to me the difference between a square root and a perfect square root. 😃

Hi. I was wondering if someone could explain to me the difference between a square root and a perfect square root. 😃

@Muhammad Junaid  It very well would be over if  people would stop @ing me like you just did. Calm down? Who said I was mad or upset? I admit to being a little annoyed that I keep trying to exit the convo only to have someone new @ me like you just did. You're the one who seems upset right now and needs to calm down. I keep trying to leave and live my life like the first time, and if people stop clogging my notifs with this long dead discussion, I could. Thank you for understand how squares and perfect squares work though. Everyone stop @ing me please! Have a good holiday, even you D D

@Muhammad Junaid  It very well would be over if  people would stop @ing me like you just did. Calm down? Who said I was mad or upset? I admit to being a little annoyed that I keep trying to exit the convo only to have someone new @ me like you just did. You're the one who seems upset right now and needs to calm down. I keep trying to leave and live my life like the first time, and if people stop clogging my notifs with this long dead discussion, I could. Thank you for understand how squares and perfect squares work though. Everyone stop @ing me please! Have a good holiday, even you D D

@TheCelestialFox oh my god . chill you are right just calm down ,relax and enjoy your life . have a great coming weekend and STOP REPLYING !<br>THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER.

@TheCelestialFox oh my god . chill you are right just calm down ,relax and enjoy your life . have a great coming weekend and STOP REPLYING !
THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER.

The Real Snowy according to celestialfox I came up with point which I agree and y'all dont understand is <br>EVERY NUMBER HAS A SQUARE (it could be any from 0-- +infinity)BUT EVERY SQUARE ISNT PERFECT. like square of any decimal is a square but isnt perfect square. Perfect squares are of whole numbers

The Real Snowy according to celestialfox I came up with point which I agree and y'all dont understand is
EVERY NUMBER HAS A SQUARE (it could be any from 0-- +infinity)BUT EVERY SQUARE ISNT PERFECT. like square of any decimal is a square but isnt perfect square. Perfect squares are of whole numbers

@Mence Apparently @ doesn't exist either. 🙄 Maybe you should stick to the Italian language which, by the way, you can't make comparisons on how Italians use their native tongue to how Americans use American English. You people (I don't mean Italians, I mean commenters) consistently make me repeat myself. Adding number after any of these terms perfect square or square does NOT change the meaning of the words anymore than saying tabby cat doesn't change the fact that a tabby is a cat. Yes, 5 is the square when you square the root of 5, but since root 5 is not an integer or whole number, it's not a perfect square. I'm only going to say this one more time: A perfect square number is a certain type of square number, don't @ me again, and maybe you should stop thinking in English and stick to Italian. Thank you, goodbye.

@Mence Apparently @ doesn't exist either. 🙄 Maybe you should stick to the Italian language which, by the way, you can't make comparisons on how Italians use their native tongue to how Americans use American English. You people (I don't mean Italians, I mean commenters) consistently make me repeat myself. Adding number after any of these terms perfect square or square does NOT change the meaning of the words anymore than saying tabby cat doesn't change the fact that a tabby is a cat. Yes, 5 is the square when you square the root of 5, but since root 5 is not an integer or whole number, it's not a perfect square. I'm only going to say this one more time: A perfect square number is a certain type of square number, don't @ me again, and maybe you should stop thinking in English and stick to Italian. Thank you, goodbye.

@TheCelestialFox the term "perfect square number" dosen't exist in English. There are square number and perfect square that are synonimous, after there are only squares. 5 is the square of √5 and not the square number of √5. The problem in this topic is not the matematics, but the English. Please, stop thinking, i know you know how to do a square, the problem is that you are passing for right a wrong term.
I'm Italian and in Italy exist only the term "quadrato perfetto" that is like to "perfect square" the term "quadrato perfetto numero" dosn't have sense, and is the corrispettive of "perfect square number" in italian 5 is the "quadrato" of √5 and not the "numero quadrato" of √5 because the term "square "("quadrato" in italian) it means itself a number and dosen't need the term number after itself.
So the problem is not the math, but the language.

@TheCelestialFox the term "perfect square number" dosen't exist in English. There are square number and perfect square that are synonimous, after there are only squares. 5 is the square of √5 and not the square number of √5. The problem in this topic is not the matematics, but the English. Please, stop thinking, i know you know how to do a square, the problem is that you are passing for right a wrong term.
I'm Italian and in Italy exist only the term "quadrato perfetto" that is like to "perfect square" the term "quadrato perfetto numero" dosn't have sense, and is the corrispettive of "perfect square number" in italian 5 is the "quadrato" of √5 and not the "numero quadrato" of √5 because the term "square "("quadrato" in italian) it means itself a number and dosen't need the term number after itself.
So the problem is not the math, but the language.

TheCelestialFox A random comment in Japanese from a history teacher and musician from Brazil: 君チンコが好きですね. I have read all 360 and so comments and even though my English is nearly perfect, my Math is only above average. Have a good day, and never forget this thread!

TheCelestialFox A random comment in Japanese from a history teacher and musician from Brazil: 君チンコが好きですね. I have read all 360 and so comments and even though my English is nearly perfect, my Math is only above average. Have a good day, and never forget this thread!

D D i wish my englich would be much better or you could speak german 😂 The problem is so simple but i try to say. You have studied math which means your main topic was to use difinitions to prove something . By the way that is the right way 😂 <br>The other guy is some IT guy who isnt bad at math but never learnd the right way to prove something . So each of you is right by his own understanding but you are right by terms of the way to do math. He is right that every number is the the square of two other numbers but it seems he doesnt know that „square number“ used as a mathematical therm with definition isnt the same as „square number“ used as an common word . He isnt dumb or something but he hasnt had the same mathematical edjucation as we had . Btw i studied physics which means i had to take the basic math classes which were brain fuck enough😂 but i know there is a huge difference between math as math and math to use in physics/IT/ electronics ect

D D i wish my englich would be much better or you could speak german 😂 The problem is so simple but i try to say. You have studied math which means your main topic was to use difinitions to prove something . By the way that is the right way 😂
The other guy is some IT guy who isnt bad at math but never learnd the right way to prove something . So each of you is right by his own understanding but you are right by terms of the way to do math. He is right that every number is the the square of two other numbers but it seems he doesnt know that „square number“ used as a mathematical therm with definition isnt the same as „square number“ used as an common word . He isnt dumb or something but he hasnt had the same mathematical edjucation as we had . Btw i studied physics which means i had to take the basic math classes which were brain fuck enough😂 but i know there is a huge difference between math as math and math to use in physics/IT/ electronics ect

@bowlchamps37 1) If you knew how to read, you'd know I said don't @ me, which means don't respond to me anymore I'm completely done with you people.

2) What you have defined is a perfect square which, again, is a certain type of square. Also, if you say you can square anything and everything, you can't deny that everything is a square of something else. Will it always be perfect? No! Again, certain numbers will be perfect squares on top of being squares, most other numbers will be squares only, not perfect.

3)I have stated multiple times that I never said the question was ambiguous to where it can't be understood. I said everyone already knows that the question IMPLIED the use of a perfect square. That's how we get to the one definitive answer of B. However, what was presented by OP was, again please use reading comprehension to understand this, a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. This means that in a pretend world, what if they needed to be more explicit and say perfect square to use integers, but still said square to you could use any arbitrary value? In that situation any answer is fair game.

If you want to ignorantly sit there and believe that square and perfect square are completely proportional even though a perfect square is a square all the time, but a square is NOT a perfect square all the time, that's no longer my business. DO NOT @ ME AGAIN PLEASE! Thank you!

Holy crap. I have a test tomorrow and i just wanna be happy by watching this vid from 11 years ago. Then I saw this fucking chain and my brain got destroyed. Looks like i won't be passing the exam. Thanks guys.

Holy crap. I have a test tomorrow and i just wanna be happy by watching this vid from 11 years ago. Then I saw this fucking chain and my brain got destroyed. Looks like i won't be passing the exam. Thanks guys.

@TheCelestialFox Ofc everything can be squared. But that does not make every number a square number. A square number is the result of n*n where n is a integer. √26  is not an integer, so 26 is not a square number. I don´t know why you all refuse to believe D D. It is a fucking definition. The question was perfectly fine. Even 5 graders should know the answer.

@TheCelestialFox Ofc everything can be squared. But that does not make every number a square number. A square number is the result of n*n where n is a integer. √26  is not an integer, so 26 is not a square number. I don´t know why you all refuse to believe D D. It is a fucking definition. The question was perfectly fine. Even 5 graders should know the answer.

Jose Cuevas No worries. Google has got our back.

Jose Cuevas No worries. Google has got our back.

I like ".... and the list goes on" part. The list doesn't stop. So every every real number is a square number. And every square no is a real no. I can't wait to shout it to the world.

I like ".... and the list goes on" part. The list doesn't stop. So every every real number is a square number. And every square no is a real no. I can't wait to shout it to the world.

@Joey wheeler Wow, I feel bad sorry for you. I'm not even going to bother explaining these concepts again. You somehow have never heard of a perfect square but pretty much everyone else here has, even if we all are understanding it differently. All I have to say is you're wrong and leave it at that.

No one @ me anymore. After this comment by Jose, I have lost all hope that you people will ever understand this concept. You'd doubt a discrete math professor even if they showed you the proofing for it. Peace!

@Joey wheeler Wow, I feel bad sorry for you. I'm not even going to bother explaining these concepts again. You somehow have never heard of a perfect square but pretty much everyone else here has, even if we all are understanding it differently. All I have to say is you're wrong and leave it at that.

No one @ me anymore. After this comment by Jose, I have lost all hope that you people will ever understand this concept. You'd doubt a discrete math professor even if they showed you the proofing for it. Peace!

@TheCelestialFox your wrong bro there's only square numbers or perfect square. Perfect square number it's not a thing.

@TheCelestialFox your wrong bro there's only square numbers or perfect square. Perfect square number it's not a thing.

yidingcao it’s basically only a question that explains what the Pythagorean’s thereom is

yidingcao it’s basically only a question that explains what the Pythagorean’s thereom is

wow yall argued this concept for over a month and consistently. I gave up reading after halfway and just started scrolling to the end laughing. BTW D D is right what the other guy is arguing is essentially the fragmented math that your teacher teaches in middle school so you dont go delving in too deep and getting confused. A square number and a number that can be squared are completely different things. Lol keep arguing made my day just seeing this persistence.

wow yall argued this concept for over a month and consistently. I gave up reading after halfway and just started scrolling to the end laughing. BTW D D is right what the other guy is arguing is essentially the fragmented math that your teacher teaches in middle school so you dont go delving in too deep and getting confused. A square number and a number that can be squared are completely different things. Lol keep arguing made my day just seeing this persistence.

The Real Snowy Well, guess what. I tried the nice way for the first five comments, but didn't really have the patience afterwards.

After all, we shouldn't get mad about one person not understanding something (even though it still annoys me because this is not a complicated topic).

After all, this is a youtube section, not a rational, live discussion. People tend to not read everything you write, and just stick with their own.

For example, I asked him several times to respond to some of my comments precisely, and he avoided that (pretty sure he did it on purpose, but then again, there is a possibility he just didn't read those). But wcyd, if I explained the same thing 20 times already, and if 20 other people explained the very same thing, and if there isn't literally anyone backing up his claim, then he should really understand in the end that he is just wrong.

Also, him being a troll is still not an excluded option.

@D D Lol the fact that you think just because I responded to you makes me take you seriously is hilarious 😂 I haven't taken you seriously since I first stopped responding to you. Also, I've seen a lot more responses coming at you than at me, but believe what you want 🤷♀

You're expecting a complete revamp of a person's character in less than 30 days? That's what's sad here lol.  Not as sad as the way you address people behind a screen in a discussion, but nearly as low. Have a great week! 😉😜

@D D Lol the fact that you think just because I responded to you makes me take you seriously is hilarious 😂 I haven't taken you seriously since I first stopped responding to you. Also, I've seen a lot more responses coming at you than at me, but believe what you want 🤷♀

You're expecting a complete revamp of a person's character in less than 30 days? That's what's sad here lol.  Not as sad as the way you address people behind a screen in a discussion, but nearly as low. Have a great week! 😉😜

@TheCelestialFox Wow, you just understood my comment seriously. That just shows that you haven't changed this past month - you are still a moron.

Edit: even more people pissing on you since my last comment. It really is so sad.

@TheCelestialFox Wow, you just understood my comment seriously. That just shows that you haven't changed this past month - you are still a moron.

Edit: even more people pissing on you since my last comment. It really is so sad.

@D D Shows what you know about either company. As if they're going to give or deny a job in software development over something as simple as this (which they would undoubtedly agree with me on as apparently only people who take math classes higher than trig understand this basic concept). Its software development, as in coding. My coding logic and design is all that matters. Try again though please, great talking with you 😂👍

@D D Shows what you know about either company. As if they're going to give or deny a job in software development over something as simple as this (which they would undoubtedly agree with me on as apparently only people who take math classes higher than trig understand this basic concept). Its software development, as in coding. My coding logic and design is all that matters. Try again though please, great talking with you 😂👍

The Real Snowy You are like a nicer version of me. I don't like that.

The Real Snowy You are like a nicer version of me. I don't like that.

@TheCelestialFox You know, I could email this discussion to Amazon and General Dynamics, and just try to guess if they are going to give you a job :D

@TheCelestialFox You know, I could email this discussion to Amazon and General Dynamics, and just try to guess if they are going to give you a job :D

The Real Snowy I said the same thing about you, which is why I'm removing myself from this convo. Funny, we agree on something finally. But as someone who has 2 offers from General Dynamics and an offer from Amazon, I truly think my time can be spent on better things than trying to educate someone so simple. Again, have a nice day, don't @ me again.

The Real Snowy I said the same thing about you, which is why I'm removing myself from this convo. Funny, we agree on something finally. But as someone who has 2 offers from General Dynamics and an offer from Amazon, I truly think my time can be spent on better things than trying to educate someone so simple. Again, have a nice day, don't @ me again.

The Real Snowy I'm going to leave now, I more than likely won't respond anymore. This argument was pointless a month ago and you're like the 3rd or 4th person I've tried to explain this simple concept of hierarchy in mathematics to. I have better things to do with my Sunday. I'm moving in with my boyfriend this month, I'm studying for a coding assessment and technical interview for a job with Amazon, I've wasted enough time and energy responding to different people about the same things over and over.

This is not me conceding, this is not me running away, this is me doing what I did the first time: living my life. Have a weekend sir!

The Real Snowy I'm going to leave now, I more than likely won't respond anymore. This argument was pointless a month ago and you're like the 3rd or 4th person I've tried to explain this simple concept of hierarchy in mathematics to. I have better things to do with my Sunday. I'm moving in with my boyfriend this month, I'm studying for a coding assessment and technical interview for a job with Amazon, I've wasted enough time and energy responding to different people about the same things over and over.

This is not me conceding, this is not me running away, this is me doing what I did the first time: living my life. Have a weekend sir!

The Real Snowy As any educator would do, I discredit your use of arbitrary website definitions, not only because you sourced Wikipedia of all places, but because anyone can include only data that supports their argument rather than data that has supporting claims and has disproving claims. In layman's terms, you're biased, and using sources that can be manipulated or are otherwise untrustworthy. Sorry about it 🤷♀ Also, it's not like you bothered to read and answer my question I raised to you, so I'd say we're even.

The Real Snowy As any educator would do, I discredit your use of arbitrary website definitions, not only because you sourced Wikipedia of all places, but because anyone can include only data that supports their argument rather than data that has supporting claims and has disproving claims. In layman's terms, you're biased, and using sources that can be manipulated or are otherwise untrustworthy. Sorry about it 🤷♀ Also, it's not like you bothered to read and answer my question I raised to you, so I'd say we're even.

The Real Snowy And since you misinterpret it, I have to stay on dog breeds. "The point I was trying to make is that NEITHER of them are parent classes or sub classes as they both mean the same thing." By that statement are you trying to say that border collie and dog are synonymous terms. I can look at a husky and go "look at that border collie over there!" or tell the owner "You have a nice border collie here!" and they would thank me without telling me "This is actually a husky... 😳"? No! The point of the analogy was to say that dog breeds are a specific kind of dog. You can call each breed a dog, but you can't call just any canine by any breed name.

Let's say you have a bike. It's a mountain bike. That distinction makes it certain type of bike. You see someone else with a beach cruiser bike. Another type of bike. You wouldn't call their bike a mountain bike or your own bike a beach cruiser. You can call them both simply bikes though. You wouldn't go into a bike shop, ask for a mountain bike, and expect to get a beach cruiser. Likewise, a perfect square number is a type of square number. You can call it a square number, but you can't call every square number perfect.

The Real Snowy I have already said they are not synonymous. I don't know how to make this any more simplistic to understand than I already have. All I can tell you is that square number encompasses a perfect square number, but is not itself a perfect square number. A perfect square number by definition is a square number, but it is a SPECIAL TYPE of square number limited to only integer values.

The Real Snowy I have already said they are not synonymous. I don't know how to make this any more simplistic to understand than I already have. All I can tell you is that square number encompasses a perfect square number, but is not itself a perfect square number. A perfect square number by definition is a square number, but it is a SPECIAL TYPE of square number limited to only integer values.

The Real Snowy Okay, and now I'm telling you, YOU'RE wrong. What you just said is the definition of a perfect square number. A perfect square number is when the result is an integer from another integer being multiplied with itself. 2 * 2 = 4. That's a square number yes, but more specifically it's also a perfect square. 1.25 * 1.25 = 1.5625. That's a square number yes, but more specifically it is NOT a perfect square number because neither the square nor the squared numbers are integers. That's the difference between the perfect square number and the square number. Perfect squares are EXCLUSIVELY integers from integers. A square number is any number from another number, INCLUDING integers, but more specifically and importantly from irrational, fractional, and decimal numbers (since of course there are more of those kinds of numbers than integers so you'll deal with those a lot more in real world situations). So I raise the question to you. Since you're not calling 1.5625 a square number (even though we know the square root is 1.25, we know 1.25 is the number you square to get 1.5625) what do you call it then? What are you doing to 1.25 to get to 1.5625 if you're not squaring it apparently? Squaring a number is defined as multiplying the number with itself to get a square number which is defined as the product of the aforementioned multiplication.

The Real Snowy Okay, so if you read every one of my comments as you claim, first of all thank you for taking the time in this mess of a thread, you don't understand what it is I'm trying to say at all. In the dog breed example, the border collie would be the perfect square, not the square. Because the border collie is a certain type of dog. Likewise, a perfect square is a certain type of square.

If you square 4, 4 * 4, you get 16. 16 is the square number of the squared number 4. It is also the perfect square number to the squared number 4. However if you square 1.25, 1.25 * 1.25, you get 1.5625. This is a square number. The square number 1.5625 is the square number to the squared number 1.25. But you wouldn't call it a perfect square number. Why? Because the squared number is not an integer. The squared number 1.25 is not a whole number.

That's the distinction I'm trying to make. You can call a perfect square number simply a square number, it is. You can call a border collie dog a dog, it is. You can't call every square number perfect, because they are not all perfect. You can't call every dog a border collie dog, because they are not all border collie dogs.

You seem to also have misunderstood my query as well. Someone was telling me that is wrong to assume that every number is a square number. So I was saying that if you squared a number to get to whatever number you were thinking of, would that not constitute it being a square number? I'll type a number completely at random: 375.3847492
This is a square number. If I go into a calculator and use the square root function I will get a result. What do I get? I get 19.3748483659. This is clearly not a perfect square. Neither the square nor squared numbers are integer values. However, you can still call this a square. 375.3847492is still a square number from the squared number 19.3748483659. My query was if you don't call it a square, what would you call it? Because if, according to you, a square and a perfect square are one and the same, this wouldn't count as being a square because it would have to be whole numbers only.

"Every number is a square, but it is only a 'perfect square' if its square root is an integer. For example the root of 2 is not a perfect square it is an irrational number 1.4142... but the square root of 4 is 2 hence perfect square."

That's what you get when you look up "perfect square vs square".

Not really. Here's a definition of a square number from wikipedia: "In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself."

Not really. Here's a definition of a square number from wikipedia: "In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself."

A square number is mathematically understood as a perfect square.

A square number is mathematically understood as a perfect square.

Omg what language are you guys talking about 😐😐

Omg what language are you guys talking about 😐😐

The Real Snowy Okay, since you clearly didn't bother to read my comments in order to see how I have explained how a square number and a perfect square number are different (hence why they even have two differentiating names), I'll explain it one more time step by step:

Perfect Square Number: A number that results from multiplying an integer (integer being defined as a whole, rational number), with itself. Examples of this include 1 * 1 = 1, 2 * 2 = 4, 15 * 15 = 225, etc.

Square Number: encompasses a perfect square number, but also includes any other number resulting from multiplying an irrational, fractional, or otherwise decimal number with itself. This includes the aforementioned examples, but also things such as (22/13) * (22/13) = 2.8639, sqrt(27) *sqrt(27) = 27, 1.25 *1.25 = 1.5625, etc.

The difference between a square number and a perfect square number is essentially that a perfect square number can only have squared numbers (squared numbers defined as the numbers being multiplied) that are whole numbers ONLY. Square numbers however can have squared numbers that can be anything from 0 to infinity. A perfect square number is a specific type of square number.

If you want to call a perfect square number a square number, go ahead, because a perfect square number is a square number. However a square number is not a perfect square number. I've given the example with animal breeds. A tabby cat is a cat, but not all cats are tabbies. It's a one way street. You can call a perfect square number a square number (it's in the name even), but you can't call a square number a perfect square number because not every square number is perfect (ie not every square number is the product of an integer being multiplied with itself). They are not synonymous, they are not mutually inclusive. It's like inheritance in programming. Computer would be the parent class, and Asus would be the child class because it is a type of computer. It inherits things that a computer can do, but the computer doesn't inherit Asus functionality. It's one way only.

I hope this finally clears up the confusion. Also, I have a lot of people liking my comments and agreeing because they understand perfectly what it is I'm saying. According to what I've read in the thread a lot of people are bashing D D for his claims (not that I condone the bashing).

The Real Snowy lmao same. I’m on my phone and it takes a good minute of scrolling just to see the newest answers. Goodnight, I guess!

The Real Snowy lmao same. I’m on my phone and it takes a good minute of scrolling just to see the newest answers. Goodnight, I guess!

The Real Snowy Thanks, you’re right. A square number = perfect square. It was poor research on my part. I’ve edited the answer.

In that regard, I still don’t understand what the whole argument was on. There seems to be a misunderstanding on the definition??

Because by definition, every number is a square. Every number is some other number multiplied by itself. But a square number in particular has integer roots, or an “exact” root. So... what’s the dilemma?

The Real Snowy Thanks, you’re right. A square number = perfect square. It was poor research on my part. I’ve edited the answer.

In that regard, I still don’t understand what the whole argument was on. There seems to be a misunderstanding on the definition??

Because by definition, every number is a square. Every number is some other number multiplied by itself. But a square number in particular has integer roots, or an “exact” root. So... what’s the dilemma?

HOLY. SH*T.

Guys. This is not hard. The man just said that all the answers are technically correct. There is no need for 300+ comments on perfect squares and square numbers.

All you need to know is: A square number is a perfect square. Any number can be squared. Not all numbers are square numbers.

ie: I can square 3.14159265358979323846264338 and get a result, but it’s not a “square number”

It’s like how a square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.

Good? Good. The question was crap.

HOLY. SH*T.

Guys. This is not hard. The man just said that all the answers are technically correct. There is no need for 300+ comments on perfect squares and square numbers.

All you need to know is: A square number is a perfect square. Any number can be squared. Not all numbers are square numbers.

ie: I can square 3.14159265358979323846264338 and get a result, but it’s not a “square number”

*It’s like how a square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.*

Good? Good. The question was crap.

@D D Google literally says for perfect square: square of a rational number. Someone does not know math.

@D D Google literally says for perfect square: square of a rational number. Someone does not know math.

@Alson Wong Ha.  This is also quite true.

— Although I agree, I'm still not sure if it's a "common thing."

@Alson Wong Ha.  This is also quite true.

— Although I agree, I'm still not sure if it's a "common thing."

true, but if you look it this way every number is a number square and at the same time a sum of two smaller number squares, so the question makes no sence.

true, but if you look it this way every number is a number square and at the same time a sum of two smaller number squares, so the question makes no sence.

Now, please, check out the definition of SQUARE NUMBER, and not Perfect Square. You'll find that, at least in my country, a SQUARE NUMBER is a number multiplied by itself, but a Perfect Square (number) is, actually, an INTEGER multiplied by itself.  But they are not the same things. If I'm wrong, as I could be, please don't send me definitions, which I've already found, but explain with civil words what's the problem with what I've found AND why. <br>Thanks.

Now, please, check out the definition of SQUARE NUMBER, and not Perfect Square. You'll find that, at least in my country, a SQUARE NUMBER is a number multiplied by itself, but a Perfect Square (number) is, actually, an INTEGER multiplied by itself.  But they are not the same things. If I'm wrong, as I could be, please don't send me definitions, which I've already found, but explain with civil words what's the problem with what I've found AND why.
Thanks.

@TheCelestialFox PHD in Mathematics here --> this is true. 5 = √5 * √5. 5 is an integer. 16 = 5 + 9. 16 =√5*√5 + √9*√9

@TheCelestialFox PHD in Mathematics here --> this is true. 5 = √5 * √5. 5 is an integer. 16 = 5 + 9. 16 =√5*√5 + √9*√9

Here’s a summary for everyone who was lazy to read all this...

Perfect Square = Square Number = 1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,... and so on
That’s the definition

This means the OP was incorrect, so DD replied with that definition to prove that the OP was incorrect.

Later TheCelestialFox came in to try to prove DD wrong.

DD tried to explain why he was correct. But TheCelestialFox came back and tried to prove DD wrong again, and also insulted him.

Then the argument heated up, two of them proving their points and sometimes insulting each other.

That’s pretty much it.
So to sum it up, TheCelestialFox lost this argument while DD won.

Sorry for assuming that everyone was male lol

Here’s a summary for everyone who was lazy to read all this...

Perfect Square = Square Number = 1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,... and so on
That’s the definition

This means the OP was incorrect, so DD replied with that definition to prove that the OP was incorrect.

Later TheCelestialFox came in to try to prove DD wrong.

DD tried to explain why he was correct. But TheCelestialFox came back and tried to prove DD wrong again, and also insulted him.

Then the argument heated up, two of them proving their points and sometimes insulting each other.

That’s pretty much it.
So to sum it up, TheCelestialFox lost this argument while DD won.

Sorry for assuming that everyone was male lol

The number has to be an integer to form a square number.

This is besides the point, but i thought it was a common thing to use 3^2+4^2=5^2 to explain pythagoras' theorem..

The number has to be an integer to form a square number.

This is besides the point, but i thought it was a common thing to use 3^2+4^2=5^2 to explain pythagoras' theorem..

Zaki Qasim My view on this is that: if a number IS (or “happens to be ”) the sum of two numbers, then it means that exactly two numbers add together to make that number.

This is mainly because your argument seems to assume that the question signifies that the number is at least the sum of two numbers.

But, without “at least” written in the question, an implied “only” seems to make perfect intuitive sense: I mean, when a doctor says that “their patient IS (or “happens to be “) 5 feet tall,” it makes sense to think that they’re only 5 feet tall... not that they’re at least 5 feet tall.

But, of course, in both situations, you could ask the inquirer. The doctor will easily say “only x feet tall” and the host will easily say “only x numbers” - especially since there IS 1 answer to the question.

— Not at least 1 answer, mind you; but, only 1 answer.

Zaki Qasim My view on this is that: if a number *IS* (or “happens _to be_ ”) the sum of two numbers, then it means that _exactly_ two numbers add together to make that number.

This is mainly because your argument seems to assume that the question signifies that the number is *at least* the sum of two numbers.

But, without “at least” written in the question, an implied “only” seems to make perfect intuitive sense: I mean, when a doctor says that “their patient *IS* (or “happens _to be_ “) 5 feet tall,” it makes sense to think that they’re *only* 5 feet tall... not that they’re _at least_ 5 feet tall.

But, of course, in both situations, you could ask the inquirer. The doctor will easily say “only x feet tall” and the host will easily say “only x numbers” - especially since there *IS* 1 answer to the question.

— Not _at least_ 1 answer, mind you; but, *only* 1 answer.

Ambiguation of terms is interesting.

— But, I think that Producers can easily make the argument that...

(1) SINCE every single one of “[the] square numbers” provided as multiple choice answers are “perfect squares...”

(2) it intuitively follows that the two “square numbers” - which add together to make the “square number” in your answer - are also “perfect squares” as well.

More practically, they probably weren’t super precise with the wording of the question because they didn’t want to lower the font size or make the text box bigger. The risk was betting on whether or not a contestant, who knows there’s only 1 answer, would counterintuitively interpret the question in a way that yields 4.

Jussayin’.

(Also: sorry, D D - Postmodernism is soooo easy to fall into. Lol.)

Ambiguation of terms is interesting.

— But, I think that Producers can easily make the argument that...

(1) SINCE every single one of “[the] square numbers” provided as multiple choice answers are “perfect squares...”

(2) it *intuitively* follows that the two “square numbers” - which add together to make the “square number” in your answer - are *also* “perfect squares” as well.

More practically, they probably weren’t super precise with the wording of the question because they didn’t want to lower the font size or make the text box bigger. The risk was betting on whether or not a contestant, who knows there’s only 1 answer, would counterintuitively interpret the question in a way that yields 4.

Jussayin’.

(Also: sorry, D D - Postmodernism is soooo easy to fall into. Lol.)

yidingcao HARVARD WANTS TO KNOW YOUR LOCATION

yidingcao HARVARD WANTS TO KNOW YOUR LOCATION

This little debate here made my math weaker

This little debate here made my math weaker

@UltimateNinja3x Yeah, it was. When you say "numbers", most would think of a integer. Why would they be on about squared decimal numbers??

@UltimateNinja3x Yeah, it was. When you say "numbers", most would think of a integer. Why would they be on about squared decimal numbers??

The question was on about integers, smartass.

The question was on about integers, smartass.

Im sure they took that into account but why in the hell would using 1^2 or the root of a square make logical sense?

Im sure they took that into account but why in the hell would using 1^2 or the root of a square make logical sense?

@D D so how many no. are there between 1-10?

@D D so how many no. are there between 1-10?

CONGRATS ON REACHING THE FINISH LINE!!<br>Thousand of comments which can be summed up to "squared numbers are not square number".

CONGRATS ON REACHING THE FINISH LINE!!
Thousand of comments which can be summed up to "squared numbers are not square number".

Sorry but your an idiot. Those are squared numbers not square numbers.

Sorry but your an idiot. Those are squared numbers not square numbers.

TheCelestialFox hey buddy I  think you are intelligent enough to leave this argument now... Let this D D be arrogant and fool, his biggest insult is in not replying to him n let him throw his comments alone

TheCelestialFox hey buddy I  think you are intelligent enough to leave this argument now... Let this D D be arrogant and fool, his biggest insult is in not replying to him n let him throw his comments alone

D D  so just stop now.. U just spread lots of hate..n this is what u knw.. Go to hell..everyone is not as free as you are! Go to hell..

D D  so just stop now.. U just spread lots of hate..n this is what u knw.. Go to hell..everyone is not as free as you are! Go to hell..

D D.. Actually everyone dislikes you n yours nonsense comments! N everyone is insulting you, not Celestial fox, please..  For the sake of god, please shut up now.. U r too much arrogant  n boring

D D.. Actually everyone dislikes you n yours nonsense comments! N everyone is insulting you, not Celestial fox, please..  For the sake of god, please shut up now.. U r too much arrogant  n boring

Vlinder007 you moron ... Did you even put  a  single logical comment in  the whole discussion, please go n get some knowledge n then come back, u idiot

Vlinder007 you moron ... Did you even put  a  single logical comment in  the whole discussion, please go n get some knowledge n then come back, u idiot

TheCelestialFox yeah .. D D is such a dumb person...

TheCelestialFox yeah .. D D is such a dumb person...

@  D D.. How does it feel when the whole comment section and the comment readers think that you are a jobless, brainless person .. Who has thissss much of  free  time to argue  with people n prove his point right, u r the most  dumb person I have ever seen

@  D D.. How does it feel when the whole comment section and the comment readers think that you are a jobless, brainless person .. Who has thissss much of  free  time to argue  with people n prove his point right, u r the most  dumb person I have ever seen

Ugandan Knuckles hahhaha.. That's correct buddy n I think D D was a clown in this whole conversation

Ugandan Knuckles hahhaha.. That's correct buddy n I think D D was a clown in this whole conversation

Filipe Miaoumiam.. Haha buddy that's correct!

Filipe Miaoumiam.. Haha buddy that's correct!

D D... Don't u have some work? Go n get some good job shut up  now

D D... Don't u have some work? Go n get some good job shut up  now

Wissale Ch..  Do you call it patience? Really!!!  He is using such abusive language n he is such a short tempered guy who is not interested in discussion but in just proving jis point right, I think u need to Google the definition of patience

Wissale Ch..  Do you call it patience? Really!!!  He is using such abusive language n he is such a short tempered guy who is not interested in discussion but in just proving jis point right, I think u need to Google the definition of patience

@ D D.. U shud have some etiquettes on how to deal with people, the way u use such abusive language shows how much educated u r!! Go back and  learn some etiquettes first and then come back for discussing on maths

@ D D.. U shud have some etiquettes on how to deal with people, the way u use such abusive language shows how much educated u r!! Go back and  learn some etiquettes first and then come back for discussing on maths

TheCelestialFox whatever dude idc that much I’ve found evidence on google both for your argument and against it, I can see both sides of the argument I just wanted to talk about what I thought based on how I was taught, you don’t have to be a prick about it

TheCelestialFox whatever dude idc that much I’ve found evidence on google both for your argument and against it, I can see both sides of the argument I just wanted to talk about what I thought based on how I was taught, you don’t have to be a prick about it

@gilito345 I have been on topic this whole time. You're kind of making things up it seems. It's been discussed countless times what a square number is vs a square (they are the same thing, putting number at the end doesn't change a thing, it's a descriptive word like saying pitbull dog vs pitbull). Likewise a perfect square number means the same thing as a perfect square. We've already covered a perfect square vs a square, and a square number vs a squared number. Please, go back to the very beginning and just read everything I've said, you're making me repeat myself more than I'd like to. Square numbers are not the exact same thing as perfect square numbers. Perfect square numbers are within the scope of square numbers, but square numbers also includes non-perfect squares. How many times are you going to make me say this? Just Google "perfect square vs square".

@gilito345 I have been on topic this whole time. You're kind of making things up it seems. It's been discussed countless times what a square number is vs a square (they are the same thing, putting number at the end doesn't change a thing, it's a descriptive word like saying pitbull dog vs pitbull). Likewise a perfect square number means the same thing as a perfect square. We've already covered a perfect square vs a square, and a square number vs a squared number. Please, go back to the very beginning and just read everything I've said, you're making me repeat myself more than I'd like to. Square numbers are not the exact same thing as perfect square numbers. Perfect square numbers are within the scope of square numbers, but square numbers also includes non-perfect squares. How many times are you going to make me say this? Just Google "perfect square vs square".

TheCelestialFox you changed the subject I never said anything about squares I was talking about square numbers square numbers by definition are the same as perfect squares. I agree not all squares are perfect as you said but squares are different than square numbers

TheCelestialFox you changed the subject I never said anything about squares I was talking about square numbers square numbers by definition are the same as perfect squares. I agree not all squares are perfect as you said but squares are different than square numbers

@gilito345 Are you slow, or do you just not like to read? All you have to do is Google "perfect square vs square" and you get the same results that I and other people here have already explained.

A perfect square is a square, but a square is not always perfect. A square is only perfect when the product you get comes from an integer being squared. For example 100 is a perfect square of 10, 49 is a perfect square of 7. They are squares and they are perfect squares. However you can't say 17 or 23 are perfect squares. They are squares of some irrational value, but not of an integer. The difference between a square and perfect square is the fact that a perfect square is the product of squaring a whole, rational, integer whereas a square is the product of integers and the product of irrational numbers being squared. They are not one in the same, they are not always mutually inclusive, that's why we have separate names for them, I don't know how much clearer I can be on this matter after having explained it so many times.

I have also already explained that a square number is the product of squaring a number whereas the squared number is the number you're multiplying with itself to get the product. If you're not going to read the things I've already stated in this to understand fully what I've said, your opinion on my views is pretty invalidated.

i feel like you’re missing the point of what a square number is. A square number is the same as a perfect square. You are confusing square number with squared number (aka number that is squared, or number to the power of 2). A square number is a number with a whole number root, while a squared number is any number that has been squared.

PS I’m ready to get roasted for having an opinion

i feel like you’re missing the point of what a square number is. A square number is the same as a perfect square. You are confusing square number with squared number (aka number that is squared, or number to the power of 2). A square number is a number with a whole number root, while a squared number is any number that has been squared.

PS I’m ready to get roasted for having an opinion

@Christian Schroeder Please check the definition of a perfect square. You will find that it is the product of rational number, an integer, multiplied with itself. This means whole numbers larger than 0, ie. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., n where n is a rational value. Yes 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, etc. are square numbers, but they are also perfect square numbers. You multiplied whole, rational, integers to get those values. You didn't square 2.9836 or 3.2856 to get 9, you squared 3. Perfect squares exist and are square numbers. I've said this countless times if you bothered to read: Every perfect square number is a square number, but not every square number is a perfect square number. Please see my example regarding 1.597. Also, please read the full thread and use Google. These terms have been defined by multiple people and official math websites such as wolfram and even Google.

Also, for the millionth time but you want to cherry pick, I never said the question wasn't clear. It was, we all know what it's asking for and know factually that the answer is B. This was a HYPOTHETICAL, THEORETICAL, PROBABLE SCENARIO. I won't explain it again, do yourself a service and read.

@TheCelestialFox there are no perfect square numbers. Square numbers and perfect squares are the same thing. 2,25 is the square of 1,5 but its not a square number! 0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, etc. are square numbers. Please check the definition of square numbers and you will see that the question is 100% explicit.

@TheCelestialFox there are no perfect square numbers. Square numbers and perfect squares are the same thing. 2,25 is the square of 1,5 but its not a square number! 0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, etc. are square numbers. Please check the definition of square numbers and you will see that the question is 100% explicit.

@Christian Schroeder Okay, wow, now you've taken this argument nearly back to the top about semantics concerning the addition of a descriptive word such as number.

Again, a square number and a square are the same thing. They are products (numbers) of a number that is multiplied with itself. Likewise a perfect square and a perfect square number are the same thing. They are products of a whole, rational number multiplied with itself. To say that "a is the square of b, but a is not the square number of b" is completely contradictory. That's like saying "16 is the perfect square of 4, but it's not the perfect square number of 4". You roll never get another value outside of 16 when squaring 4. The value you get when you square 1.2637246536 is only 1.597. You will not get another value. 1.597 is the square number to 1.2637246536. It's what you get when you square it and it is a number. When you square any number, you get a number in the output. It's the square number you get from the squared number. Square and square number are synonymous. Saying number at the end does not change the definition. It's like saying tabby and tabby cat. They are the same thing, a cat. To say cat at the end doesn't change that.

Finally, as I have also stated countless times in my time in this thread as well, the question is understood by everyone. We all get the context and know that B is the only correct solution. What OP and I are saying is that IN A HYPOTHETICAL, PROBABLE, THEORETICAL, MADE UP, ALTERNATE REALITY, because the question was presented in a way that did not EXPLICITLY state "using perfect squares", and because any number on this God forsaken planet can be squared, you can THEORETICALLY, HYPOTHETICALLY, PROBABLY reach any one of those 4 answers. Why is that so hard for people to read? It's like people are cherry picking words and phrases and are acting like I'm talking about this reality. 🤦♂🤦♀🤦♂🤦♀

This entire argument is stupid. Who cares if a square number means the product of an integer being multiplied by itself? It doesnt matter that the word is used incorrectly, because everybody understands the meaning. Nitpicking the fact that the word was used correctly is pointless, especially considering this is the damn YouTube comments section, not a university class, not a professional setting at all.

This entire argument is stupid. Who cares if a square number means the product of an integer being multiplied by itself? It doesnt matter that the word is used incorrectly, because everybody understands the meaning. Nitpicking the fact that the word was used correctly is pointless, especially considering this is the damn YouTube comments section, not a university class, not a professional setting at all.

@TheCelestialFox 1,597 is the square of 1,2637246536, its is not called the square number of 1,2637246536, that is the problem. I know what you mean but this question (which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?) is clearly defined. The term or the concept (i dont know the right word because english is not my mother languege) "square number" is also clearly defined. You are right when you say technically every number is the square of some other number. But not all of them are a square number, that is the point.

@TheCelestialFox 1,597 is the square of 1,2637246536, its is not called the square number of 1,2637246536, that is the problem. I know what you mean but this question (which of these square numbers also happens to be the sum of two smaller square numbers?) is clearly defined. The term or the concept (i dont know the right word because english is not my mother languege) "square number" is also clearly defined. You are right when you say technically every number is the square of some other number. But not all of them are a square number, that is the point.

@Christian Schroeder Shows what you know about any form of mathematics that deals with multiples lol. And English for that matter. How many times must a person include the words HYPOTHETICAL and THEORETICAL, sometimes in caps, for you to understand that OP and I are talking about a possibility? Technically speaking yes, every number is a square of some other number, whether it be whole or not. HOWEVER, not every square number is a PERFECT square number. You can find the square root of practically any number you can think of big or small, whole, fractional, or decimal. As I have stated multiple times (I suppose you have no reading comprehension to see that) every perfect square number is a square number, but not every square number is a perfect square number. It's like saying all golden retrievers are dogs, but not all dogs are golden retrievers (to dumb ot down for you, you're welcome). 16 is a perfect square number of 4. It's a square number and a perfect square number. An arbitrary value like 1.597 is a square number of 1.2637246536. It's not perfect, but it's a square number nonetheless. You can square any number and get another number that is its square number. Having had to do an abundance of math courses, one of which being discrete math, with a lot of proofing, this is basic knowledge. Even the square of 0 is 0. It's not hard to comprehend.

@TheCelestialFox according to your logic every number is a square number. I thaught you have to think logical as an computer systems engineer?! I was probably wrong in that case lol

@TheCelestialFox according to your logic every number is a square number. I thaught you have to think logical as an computer systems engineer?! I was probably wrong in that case lol

1853 likers dont know the definition of a square number, this is very sad. 25 is the only correct answer here!

1853 likers dont know the definition of a square number, this is very sad. 25 is the only correct answer here!

I'm crying this sounds like a class debate, this comment section is filled with it
Grab the popcorn even though it might be over

I'm crying this sounds like a class debate, this comment section is filled with it
*Grab the popcorn even though it might be over*

@D D fuck off nerd it doesn't matter if people add an extra word nobody gives a shit how smart you think you are

@D D fuck off nerd it doesn't matter if people add an extra word nobody gives a shit how smart you think you are

D D imagine arguing with a flat earther. They are definitely wrong but you won't be able to convince them, so there's no point arguing with them.

It's similar here. People are wrong, but you won't be able to change them. So I think it's best just to remain silent

D D imagine arguing with a flat earther. They are definitely wrong but you won't be able to convince them, so there's no point arguing with them.

It's similar here. People are wrong, but you won't be able to change them. So I think it's best just to remain silent

D D dude, I see your frustration and pain. As a maths student, it pains me to see how so many people don't understand what square number means, yet they think they do.

You know you are right, and I (or anyone who is actually able at maths) will know you are right, and others won't. No matter how hard you try to teach them, they won't understand. That's just how selfish people are. So you don't have to try anymore. You worked hard enough my friend. It's so sooo frustrating ik

D D dude, I see your frustration and pain. As a maths student, it pains me to see how so many people don't understand what square number means, yet they think they do.

You know you are right, and I (or anyone who is actually able at maths) will know you are right, and others won't. No matter how hard you try to teach them, they won't understand. That's just how selfish people are. So you don't have to try anymore. You worked hard enough my friend. It's so sooo frustrating ik

This questionis not for oxford's admission, so common its clear it was B

This questionis not for oxford's admission, so common its clear it was B

@Martin Jayaraj lol it isn't. I don't think the op realised a square number is the result of n * n. n being an interger.  Basic maths don't really know what the fuss is about tbh. People upvote without thinking. Further more you can just look up a list of square numbers and see root 15 isn't there. Since any interger squared will give another integer.

@Martin Jayaraj lol it isn't. I don't think the op realised a square number is the result of n * n. n being an interger.  Basic maths don't really know what the fuss is about tbh. People upvote without thinking. Further more you can just look up a list of square numbers and see root 15 isn't there. Since any interger squared will give another integer.

Filipe Miaoumiam he explained it 50 times, I think that’s enough to annoy anyobe

Filipe Miaoumiam he explained it 50 times, I think that’s enough to annoy anyobe

Cheydinal yes if you understand English it does, in your way, apparently the sum of 2 and 3 can equal 18, is that right? No

Cheydinal yes if you understand English it does, in your way, apparently the sum of 2 and 3 can equal 18, is that right? No

Abdalla Ahmed dude, a “square number” is EXACTLY the same as a perfect square, any other number like 15 can technically be a number squared, but don’t fit the definition of Square number

Abdalla Ahmed dude, a “square number” is EXACTLY the same as a perfect square, any other number like 15 can technically be a number squared, but don’t fit the definition of Square number

D D that hurt me reading his replies, lol wtf

D D that hurt me reading his replies, lol wtf

@Abdalla Ahmed No, As has already been pointed out several times I believe there is no such thing as a perfect square number. There is just a square number or a perfect square. In simple terms a square number (or perfect square) is the awnser to a WHOLE number that is multiplied by itself. It cannot be a decimal number. It must be a WHOLE number. In mathematics these things have very precise terms. You can certainly square any number. (multiply any number by itself) but unless that number is a WHOLE number then the product can't be classified as a Square number.  Hope this has helped your understanding

@Abdalla Ahmed No, As has already been pointed out several times I believe there is no such thing as a perfect square number. There is just a square number or a perfect square. In simple terms a square number (or perfect square) is the awnser to a WHOLE number that is multiplied by itself. It cannot be a decimal number. It must be a WHOLE number. In mathematics these things have very precise terms. You can certainly square any number. (multiply any number by itself) but unless that number is a WHOLE number then the product can't be classified as a Square number.  Hope this has helped your understanding

A square number is  the awnser to a Whole Number when that whole number is multiplied by itself. It cannot be a decimal number or fraction or any other number other than a whole number.

A square number is  the awnser to a Whole Number when that whole number is multiplied by itself. It cannot be a decimal number or fraction or any other number other than a whole number.

@D D wait what? I thought 16<br>16 is 4 and 4 is 2

@D D wait what? I thought 16
16 is 4 and 4 is 2

@D D You are wrong because of your assumptions that Google search brings up correct definitions of complex subjects - which if you investigated further via the same Google search you would find that some authors indeed do use 'perfect square' distinctively from just 'square' - many things depend on context and agreed concensus so sometines there is not black and white definition as you would like to portray

@D D You are wrong because of your assumptions that Google search brings up correct definitions of complex subjects - which if you investigated further via the same Google search you would find that some authors indeed do use 'perfect square' distinctively from just 'square' - many things depend on context and agreed concensus so sometines there is not black and white definition as you would like to portray

If a square number didn’t need to be what you defined as a “perfect square number” then like every number could be a square number soooooo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If a square number didn’t need to be what you defined as a “perfect square number” then like every number could be a square number soooooo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

STOP ARGUING OVER MATH OH MY GOD YALL NEED JESUS

STOP ARGUING OVER MATH OH MY GOD YALL NEED JESUS

I’m 13. I actually have to explain this to grown adults. Just to sum it up, square number and perfect square both mean the Same thing. They are the square of an integer, meaning that their square root is a whole number. Any decimal can be squared, however the result will not be a square number. The question clearly states that it is the sum of two square numbers, therefore the original statement is incorrect as square number and perfect square have the same meaning.

I’m 13. I actually have to explain this to grown adults. Just to sum it up, square number and perfect square both mean the Same thing. They are the square of an integer, meaning that their square root is a whole number. Any decimal can be squared, however the result will not be a square number. The question clearly states that it is the sum of two square numbers, therefore the original statement is incorrect as square number and perfect square have the same meaning.

@TheCelestialFox Your comments have no likes in the latter part of discussion. Are you fucking blind?

You claim OP could be right, even hypothetically. No, he can't. Not even closely right.

You can't just add number to a mathematical term.

Your proposition is to add number to, for example,  a square, so you could get square number. What you did is you made something that is already defined in mathematical world and english vocabulary, yet you would claim that square is equal to square number, because yeah, you just added a word "number" to the end of something that has completely other meaning.

A square is a square -> something you have been using instead of square number.

Add number after the square, you get square number that is completely different from just square.

Mathematics is a very precise and strict field of science. Someone who didn't do serious mathematics will never know and understand this.

@TheCelestialFox Your comments have no likes in the latter part of discussion. Are you fucking blind?

You claim OP could be right, even hypothetically. No, he can't. Not even closely right.

You can't just add number to a mathematical term.

Your proposition is to add number to, for example,  a square, so you could get square number. What you did is you made something that is already defined in mathematical world and english vocabulary, yet you would claim that square is equal to square number, because yeah, you just added a word "number" to the end of something that has completely other meaning.

A square is a square -> something you have been using instead of square number.

Add number after the square, you get square number that is completely different from just square.

Mathematics is a very precise and strict field of science. Someone who didn't do serious mathematics will never know and understand this.

@kiran v I already understand that non perfect roots run forever typically. But you can round to the nearest nth term, and still get the rooted term essentially. Root 15 is 3.8729833462 just about, and squaring that gets you 14.9999999999.... which a lot of calculators will show as 15. The more decimal places you add, the more accurate your square number will be. And as discussed before, they will not expect you to know these non perfect roots nor will they provide a calculator, pencil, or paper to do work. They clearly don't care if and how you what terms to use. If you use a square root, they aren't going to be like "no you can't use that unless you know the root in decimal form". Math courses don't even typically do that unless a calculator is involved and you need to graph it. I think you and a lot of people are missing the fact that this is a hypothetical scenario. You're reading this like I'm trying to pertain this to what actually happened. Like I'm trying to say he could've chosen any answer and been right. Not in reality, but in a theoretical one, more than likely.

@rlv Yes the question was clear. I was never refuting that the question was ambiguous. I was agreeing with OP that in a hypothetical world, because the question was asked in a way that did not explicitly say perfect squares only, you can use any square to get to any of those answers. That was all.

If you want someone to yell at you, look for D D. He'll also hurl insults free of charge. Like I said, I'm open to discussion in a mature manner.

You mention that they don't expect people to use non-whole numbers. That's precisely my argument. It's implicit that you would use perfect roots, but technically speaking, in a hypothetical way, they just said squares, so any square would be fair game.

@rlv Yes the question was clear. I was never refuting that the question was ambiguous. I was agreeing with OP that in a hypothetical world, because the question was asked in a way that did not explicitly say perfect squares only, you can use any square to get to any of those answers. That was all.

If you want someone to yell at you, look for D D. He'll also hurl insults free of charge. Like I said, I'm open to discussion in a mature manner.

You mention that they don't expect people to use non-whole numbers. That's precisely my argument. It's implicit that you would use perfect roots, but technically speaking, in a hypothetical way, they just said squares, so any square would be fair game.

TheCelestialFox look ! What I’m telling is that root of any number will be non ending non recurring decimal value so by that one should understand that the number is not reaching a definite value .so once we take its square it’s actually an approximate value. So root15 is an approximation of 3.87298346......... etc! Hope I’m clear now

TheCelestialFox look ! What I’m telling is that root of any number will be non ending non recurring decimal value so by that one should understand that the number is not reaching a definite value .so once we take its square it’s actually an approximate value. So root15 is an approximation of 3.87298346......... etc! Hope I’m clear now

Look, I’m not a math expert, at all. I apologize in advance if I’m wrong, but I don’t think they really count square roots of numbers that aren’t whole. (I really am sorry if I’m wrong please don’t start yelling at me)

Look, I’m not a math expert, at all. I apologize in advance if I’m wrong, but I don’t think they really count square roots of numbers that aren’t whole. (I really am sorry if I’m wrong please don’t start yelling at me)

yidingcao you’re technically right, but most people when talking about square numbers, they talk about whole numbers, not decimals. So I think it was pretty clear

yidingcao you’re technically right, but most people when talking about square numbers, they talk about whole numbers, not decimals. So I think it was pretty clear

@Moska Did you mean to say rate or were you trying to say hate?

Sorry if that's how my comments came off, I wasn't trying to be a smart aleck with the presenter, like I said before, this was supposed to be a fun, food for thought kind of thing. But certain people want to feel superior apparently. Can't have a nice discussion online 🤷♀

@Moska Did you mean to say rate or were you trying to say hate?

Sorry if that's how my comments came off, I wasn't trying to be a smart aleck with the presenter, like I said before, this was supposed to be a fun, food for thought kind of thing. But certain people want to feel superior apparently. Can't have a nice discussion online 🤷♀

@kiran v Look, have you ever had a math class where you have the root of a number and you square it to get the number without the root? Maybe you're doing it to both sides of an equation or something? And you can write the non perfect root of a number as a decimal. Easiest with a calculator, but doable. Besides you wouldn't need to know what the decimal is since you're adding the sum of two terms. So since squaring the root of one number is the number and squaring the root of another gets you any of the answers when summed, it doesn't matter what you square as long as you get to the answer. Never said root 15 was a real number btw. I've only been talking about whole numbers, integers, and rational numbers. To which I never said outright root 15 was any. I used it as an arbitrary example.

@kiran v Look, have you ever had a math class where you have the root of a number and you square it to get the number without the root? Maybe you're doing it to both sides of an equation or something? And you can write the non perfect root of a number as a decimal. Easiest with a calculator, but doable. Besides you wouldn't need to know what the decimal is since you're adding the sum of two terms. So since squaring the root of one number is the number and squaring the root of another gets you any of the answers when summed, it doesn't matter what you square as long as you get to the answer. Never said root 15 was a real number btw. I've only been talking about whole numbers, integers, and rational numbers. To which I never said outright root 15 was any. I used it as an arbitrary example.

Outsmarting the presenter yh, I rate that.

Outsmarting the presenter yh, I rate that.

@D D What are you even talking about? A lot of my replies from before I left the first time was spent arguing your first comment. That was the whole argument about the significance of adding the identifier of "number" after the terms prime square and square to make them prime square number and square number. To which the is no change to the meanings of either in doing so. To call a number a number in the title does as much as multiplying a number by 1.

I wrote the definitions of both terms multiple times saying that while the definitions make PSN and SN different from EACH OTHER, which the person we both agreed with not too long ago wrote pretty much the same definitions as me, adding number in the name doesn't change those definitions. That's been my point from day one with you. If you seriously think I haven't been trying to make points about your initial comment, you lose all credibility and validity at this point.

Check the likes for you vs. me for those comments in the beginning. I do have people who agree with me because they understand what I'm saying. The OP who I've been supporting all this time has over 1k likes to.

From when is root 15 a real number ? It’s an irrational number dude

From when is root 15 a real number ? It’s an irrational number dude

@TheCelestialFox that's what i thought. no reply to my first comment, but a reply to a second comment that is not relevant to the discussion.

Spending days and nights? Sure dude. Whatever makes your argument stronger. I just love that everyone pissed on you in this comment section and literally nobody agreed with you in comments.

Also, please reply to my first comment, where it is clear that, if you are really serious about this discussion, you are one big moron who is literally denying the official definition of something. Imagine how braindead you need to be to actually do that.

@TheCelestialFox that's what i thought. no reply to my first comment, but a reply to a second comment that is not relevant to the discussion.

Spending days and nights? Sure dude. Whatever makes your argument stronger. I just love that everyone pissed on you in this comment section and literally nobody agreed with you in comments.

Also, please reply to my first comment, where it is clear that, if you are really serious about this discussion, you are one big moron who is literally denying the official definition of something. Imagine how braindead you need to be to actually do that.

@D D No irony, I've been living my life for weeks after this convo and just came back recently to discuss with more mature, respectful individuals. You're the one who's been spending their days and nights for that time responding to replies from other people over and over. If I was as invested as you, then it would be ironic. And keep calling me a troll like the broken record you are lol 🤦♀🤷♀

@D D No irony, I've been living my life for weeks after this convo and just came back recently to discuss with more mature, respectful individuals. You're the one who's been spending their days and nights for that time responding to replies from other people over and over. If I was as invested as you, then it would be ironic. And keep calling me a troll like the broken record you are lol 🤦♀🤷♀

@john smith But you don't need to know what the root of, I'll go with your number, 23 is in order to use it. You know that if you square the root of 23 you're left with 23 and if you squared the root of another number like say 26, you'd end up with 26 and once you add them you get the answer 49. The lady questioning him isn't expecting him to show his math, they didn't provide a calculator or pen and paper, but that's why even in typical fashion in math courses you save time and energy and write square roots that aren't perfect as square roots. Or you write fractions as fractions and not decimals if you can avoid doing so.

Is this a stretch? More than likely. But this was never meant to be a hypothetical that was to be taken so seriously. It was simply food for thought. Not thought provoking or philosophical. Just a small notice in the technicality of using Square number vs. Perfect square number. That's all.

@john smith But you don't need to know what the root of, I'll go with your number, 23 is in order to use it. You know that if you square the root of 23 you're left with 23 and if you squared the root of another number like say 26, you'd end up with 26 and once you add them you get the answer 49. The lady questioning him isn't expecting him to show his math, they didn't provide a calculator or pen and paper, but that's why even in typical fashion in math courses you save time and energy and write square roots that aren't perfect as square roots. Or you write fractions as fractions and not decimals if you can avoid doing so.

Is this a stretch? More than likely. But this was never meant to be a hypothetical that was to be taken so seriously. It was simply food for thought. Not thought provoking or philosophical. Just a small notice in the technicality of using Square number vs. Perfect square number. That's all.

@D D I'm explaining this one more time to your, then I'm going to ignore you because you're simply ignorant at this point and blind and are focusing more on being disrespectful than discussing things. It's no wonder why you constantly misinterpret everything I say. I'm almost convinced you know I'm right, but your ego won't let you concede.

A square number is the product of a non-integer value multiplied with itself. More clearly as the person we both agreed with defined, the product of a rational number which is a non-whole, fractional number, A decimal, being multiplied with itself. Therefore, you can interpret sum of square numbers as the sum of some arbitrary, rational values being squared to reach the other answers. Sum of two square numbers to get 16? You could use root 11 (3.316...) squared plus root 5 (2.236...) squared and you get 16. If you want to be clear that the square numbers must be integers, then the question could've instead said sum of two perfect square numbers. Then the only true answer would be 25. Yet, once again, we know through implication the question meant using the latter and not the former. This whole thing was a hypothetical, a technicality, a possibility, a scenario. And you're here getting pressed about an imaginary situation for weeks? Live your life!

@TheCelestialFox I know that is what you are saying, I'm saying what you guys are saying, that your hypothetical interpretation of the question, is a stretch. and even though "technically", yeah, you could do it the way the OP suggested, the guy being questioned wasn't even given a calculator to enable him to find the square root of, say, 23. You can do it without a calculator, i am aware of that, what I'm saying is, unless you're a mathletics top scorer, you're gonna need pen, paper, lots of paper, as finding a square root of a number is an arduous process, without one. And since he wasn't given a calculator, the likeliest interpretation of the question is the one that involves answers that are not decimals.

Maybe if this question was asked today, he could just pull out his smart phone and use the calculator on it, but this was 11 years ago, when Motorolla phones and Nokias were all the rage. And i'd still need lots of paper, even if I had a calculator. And lots of time.

@TheCelestialFox I know that is what you are saying, I'm saying what you guys are saying, that your hypothetical interpretation of the question, is a _stretch._ and even though "technically", yeah, you could do it the way the OP suggested, the guy being questioned wasn't even given a calculator to enable him to find the square root of, say, 23. You can do it without a calculator, i am aware of that, what I'm saying is, unless you're a mathletics top scorer, you're gonna need pen, paper, lots of paper, as finding a square root of a number is an arduous process, without one. And since he wasn't given a calculator, the likeliest interpretation of the question is the one that involves answers that are not decimals.

Maybe if this question was asked today, he could just pull out his smart phone and use the calculator on it, but this was 11 years ago, when Motorolla phones and Nokias were all the rage. And i'd still need lots of paper, even if I had a calculator. And lots of time.

@TheCelestialFox It literally says square numbers in the question on the video, not squareD numbers. You claim all of the answers are tehnically correct. Therefore, you are a moron.

@TheCelestialFox It literally says square numbers in the question on the video, not squareD numbers. You claim all of the answers are tehnically correct. Therefore, you are a moron.

@D D I never said 15 was a square number. I said root 15 squared makes 15 which can be seen under that pretense as a squared number. I never said 15 was a square number period. You really don't read do you?

Also, you were the one who wanted to make a big deal out of saying perfect square vs saying perfect square number and square vs square number. And by conventional English standards, and other languages whose linguistic rules follow, adding a descriptive word at the end of another word typically does not change the overall meaning.

@D D I never said 15 was a square number. I said root 15 squared makes 15 which can be seen under that pretense as a squared number. I never said 15 was a square number period. You really don't read do you?

Also, you were the one who wanted to make a big deal out of saying perfect square vs saying perfect square number and square vs square number. And by conventional English standards, and other languages whose linguistic rules follow, adding a descriptive word at the end of another word typically does not change the overall meaning.

@john smith No, that's what I and OP are saying. The question just asked for the addition of squared numbers which, due to the 2 numbers being added coming from just a square, could include numbers that are not whole. Numbers that have decimals in them. We both understand the implication was to square an integer and sum it with another squared integer to get one of the possible answers shown, we know that the answer is B, however we're saying HYPOTHETICALLY, because the question didn't specify the numbers had to be perfect squares being summed, that the answer TECHNICALLY, under the hypothetical, could've been any of those answers. And then D D wanted to make a big argument out of a hypothetical...

@john smith No, that's what I and OP are saying. The question just asked for the addition of squared numbers which, due to the 2 numbers being added coming from just a square, could include numbers that are not whole. Numbers that have decimals in them. We both understand the implication was to square an integer and sum it with another squared integer to get one of the possible answers shown, we know that the answer is B, however we're saying HYPOTHETICALLY, because the question didn't specify the numbers had to be perfect squares being summed, that the answer TECHNICALLY, under the hypothetical, could've been any of those answers. And then D D wanted to make a big argument out of a hypothetical...

@TheCelestialFox I know. I'm saying the question didn't ask for square numbers whose roots are decimals. Which is why the answer to that question is 25.

@TheCelestialFox I know. I'm saying the question didn't ask for square numbers whose roots are decimals. Which is why the answer to that question is 25.

the ending word doesn't really matter. that is just another topic in which you are wrong.<br>you claim 15 is a square number. our discussion stops at that pretty much.

the ending word doesn't really matter. that is just another topic in which you are wrong.
you claim 15 is a square number. our discussion stops at that pretty much.

@D D Actually, if you noticed more people liked my comments than they did yours. You have next to no likes after your first comment, but several of mine (before we get too far down) have a lot of likes. And I stopped replying because, like I said, I was enjoying my weekend and life. Why feed the hate on a Saturday?

Also, simply because you don't agree with me about something trivial like the addition of an identifier at the end of a term (because we clearly agree on the meaning of the words) doesn't mean anyone is trolling. You're welcome to try again 😊

@D D Actually, if you noticed more people liked my comments than they did yours. You have next to no likes after your first comment, but several of mine (before we get too far down) have a lot of likes. And I stopped replying because, like I said, I was enjoying my weekend and life. Why feed the hate on a Saturday?

Also, simply because you don't agree with me about something trivial like the addition of an identifier at the end of a term (because we clearly agree on the meaning of the words) doesn't mean anyone is trolling. You're welcome to try again 😊

@john smith Actually the root of 23 is 4.7958315233. Even if it was 4.8, 4.8 is a number with a decimal in it. The 0.8 is a decimal. And 4.8 squared is 23.04.

@john smith Actually the root of 23 is 4.7958315233. Even if it was 4.8, 4.8 is a number with a decimal in it. The 0.8 is a decimal. And 4.8 squared is 23.04.

@TheCelestialFox Yeah, because will be bothered to open 121525 replies and scroll to the first reply to see my comment. Once you take a look at replies, nobody likes your comments and everyone insults you.

I am however gonna give it to you. You managed to troll everyone here.

@TheCelestialFox Yeah, because will be bothered to open 121525 replies and scroll to the first reply to see my comment. Once you take a look at replies, nobody likes your comments and everyone insults you.

I am however gonna give it to you. You managed to troll everyone here.

@Chester  "square number is a number with rational roots"

I agree dude.

@Chester  "square number is a number with rational roots"

I agree dude.

@Vlinder007 How convenient for you then that esel means ass in German. Since you meant to write something else, that whole comment is pretty much nullified due to all the grammatical errors. Kind of ironic given the purpose of that message lol.

@Vlinder007 How convenient for you then that esel means ass in German. Since you meant to write something else, that whole comment is pretty much nullified due to all the grammatical errors. Kind of ironic given the purpose of that message lol.

@TheCelestialFox not german   just saying

@TheCelestialFox not german   just saying

@Vlinder007 Maybe you should stick to trying to type English better before calling people names in German? I've read through your limited posts, since your still new to the convo, and you have only stated that two terms mentioned are different to which I said yes they are and explained how, but you have only said I'm wrong anyway even though we agreed on the same thing essentially (though since you don't know how to expand upon a claim, I can't be too sure if we agree based on the same definitions) and have since resorted to immature name calling.

넌 독일어로 말하고 싶으면, 그럼 난 한국어로 할 게요. Just saying 🤷♀

@Vlinder007 Maybe you should stick to trying to type English better before calling people names in German? I've read through your limited posts, since your still new to the convo, and you have only stated that two terms mentioned are different to which I said yes they are and explained how, but you have only said I'm wrong anyway even though we agreed on the same thing essentially (though since you don't know how to expand upon a claim, I can't be too sure if we agree based on the same definitions) and have since resorted to immature name calling.

넌 독일어로 말하고 싶으면, 그럼 난 한국어로 할 게요. Just saying 🤷♀

@TheCelestialFox ready everything carefully   maybe you will get it then    you ARE wrong  but have the disposition of a esel

@TheCelestialFox ready everything carefully   maybe you will get it then    you ARE wrong  but have the disposition of a esel

@Vlinder007 Just saying I'm wrong doesn't  mean I am anymore than saying I'm right proves I am. You still are saying things without really saying anything other than throwing bm. Why waste your time?

@Vlinder007 Just saying I'm wrong doesn't  mean I am anymore than saying I'm right proves I am. You still are saying things without really saying anything other than throwing bm. Why waste your time?

@D D I mean, I only see a few people doing that, and since it's pretty much just people trying to think of the meanest, nastiest things they can call me rather than refute anything I believe with their own beliefs, there's no power or credibility behind it. Also notice how many likes in agreement OP has compared to you? It's because most others understand math and English and know what he meant. You and your people are blinded by rage and hatred because others don't agree with you. Good luck with that mentality in life.

@D D I mean, I only see a few people doing that, and since it's pretty much just people trying to think of the meanest, nastiest things they can call me rather than refute anything I believe with their own beliefs, there's no power or credibility behind it. Also notice how many likes in agreement OP has compared to you? It's because most others understand math and English and know what he meant. You and your people are blinded by rage and hatred because others don't agree with you. Good luck with that mentality in life.

@Chester Thank you for saying what most people should be realizing by now. You pretty much simplified what I've been trying to say throughout my whole time commenting here. Hard to get your point across when everyone would rather throw insults instead of trying to discuss their points maturely like decent humans should. Thank you.

@Chester Thank you for saying what most people should be realizing by now. You pretty much simplified what I've been trying to say throughout my whole time commenting here. Hard to get your point across when everyone would rather throw insults instead of trying to discuss their points maturely like decent humans should. Thank you.

@D D a term is created by humans, when too many people uses the “wrong” term then it is generally accepted and can be used

@D D a term is created by humans, when too many people uses the “wrong” term then it is generally accepted and can be used

@B B perfect square number is a number with integer roots<br>square number is a number with rational roots

@B B perfect square number is a number with integer roots
square number is a number with rational roots

@Leighton X That's what I'm trying to argue though. A perfect square is a number. It's not a shape, it's not a color, it's not a person, it's a number. Attaching the word number to the end of it doesn't change the meaning of the term. A perfect square number and a perfect square mean the same thing. Likewise for square and square number. Now if you say squared number (for the sake that it's been brought up in this convo now), while that's also a number it's not the same number as a square one. (Also since it's used as an adjective the word number is more necessary than simply sufficient). What I don't understand is why people who disagree are acting like adding the word number to the terms changes the meaning altogether. It's like saying German Shepherd dog. It's a dog, you can add the word dog to the breed name. It's not conventional to do so, but it can be done without changing the meaning.

Even in Korean words for colors include the word color itself. Red, for example, is "빨간색". "빨간" means red and "색" means color. Literally translated it's "red color", though it just means "red". You can drop the 색 if you choose in a lot of situations, but you can also use it too.

@Vlinder007 Yeah, your "elaboration" is on the wrong thing. If you're not going to say why you think my definition of the terms you mentioned but fail to say anything about, but rather just throw insults like a 5 year old, you only prove my point that you're too immature to hold down a proper discussion and argue beliefs like a mature adult 🤷♀

@Vlinder007 Yeah, your "elaboration" is on the wrong thing. If you're not going to say why you think my definition of the terms you mentioned but fail to say anything about, but rather just throw insults like a 5 year old, you only prove my point that you're too immature to hold down a proper discussion and argue beliefs like a mature adult 🤷♀

@D D Bless your patience with these numbskulls

@D D Bless your patience with these numbskulls

@TheCelestialFox Good God you are thick as bricks

@TheCelestialFox Good God you are thick as bricks

@D D also I recall you saying that the question was pretty clear and that the answer was definitely B. I would like for you to elaborate on how the original commentor was wrong.

@D D also I recall you saying that the question was pretty clear and that the answer was definitely B. I would like for you to elaborate on how the original commentor was wrong.

@D D Yea I think this has gone so long that people have gotten the both the original premise and topic of this conversation confused. By scrolling down this far, even i've forgotten what the original comment was but D D is trying to say that within the English language, the term 'perfect square number' does not exist but the term 'perfect square' and 'square number' do. He is not denying any mathematical fact from what I can see. The problem is that insults and childish remarks get thrown around in the comment section until it gets mixed up with the initial topic which leads to confusion because no one can remember what they were talking about.

@D D Yea I think this has gone so long that people have gotten the both the original premise and topic of this conversation confused. By scrolling down this far, even i've forgotten what the original comment was but D D is trying to say that within the English language, the term 'perfect square number' does not exist but the term 'perfect square' and 'square number' do. He is not denying any mathematical fact from what I can see. The problem is that insults and childish remarks get thrown around in the comment section until it gets mixed up with the initial topic which leads to confusion because no one can remember what they were talking about.

@TheCelestialFox my elaborated point is that you are dead wrong and an enormous idiot  and a pompous ass too

@TheCelestialFox my elaborated point is that you are dead wrong and an enormous idiot  and a pompous ass too

@Vlinder007  I've already stated the definitions of a squared number, a perfect squared number, a square number, and a perfect square number, have stated that each of them have very obvious differences, explained those differences, and related them back to the overall argument of this thread and the video. You meanwhile have merely claimed that "they mean different things" like a broken record without saying what you perceive those meanings to be (which honestly makes you lose all credibility when trying to take some high road you have no business being on). I have not twisted any definitions throughout my entire time commenting on this thread like you seem to be doing with my words like the ignorant fool you've been this whole time. In the end, despite our views more or less lining up (since you want to be a cryptic, non-contributing but somehow argumentative fool that has only said one thing for now, a claim), I find it best to see myself back out of this toxic conversation rather than continue trying to have a discussion with someone as uneducated in the ways of carrying a conversation with relevant and ELABORATED points as you. Have a good night!

@TheCelestialFox there is a difference between a squared number   and a square number

@TheCelestialFox there is a difference between a squared number   and a square number

@TheCelestialFox not going to argue the same points again     the definition of square number means something very specific   you as one little individual cannot change that to win your argument    if you flatly refuse to accept the proper definition of the term " square number"  then ok  ignorance is bliss

@TheCelestialFox not going to argue the same points again     the definition of square number means something very specific   you as one little individual cannot change that to win your argument    if you flatly refuse to accept the proper definition of the term " square number"  then ok  ignorance is bliss

@Vlinder007 I don't remember D D saying anything like that in his original claims regarding me. His thing was that there's no such thing as a perfect square number or square number because you just call them perfect square or square and that they were the same thing.

I already know that squared number and square number are two different. Respectively they are the term being squared and the term resulting from squaring a term. But he never claimed that when I was talking to him.

@Vlinder007 I don't remember D D saying anything like that in his original claims regarding me. His thing was that there's no such thing as a perfect square number or square number because you just call them perfect square or square and that they were the same thing.

I already know that squared number and square number are two different. Respectively they are the term being squared and the term resulting from squaring a term. But he never claimed that when I was talking to him.

@Vlinder007 The whole point of having the term perfect square is to differentiate it from the squares that aren't perfect. You run into squares a lot more in math (at least in my math courses for my degree) than you do perfect squares. That's the argument I'm making. Perfect squares and squares are different things in most cases with some overlap because all perfect squares are squares, but not all squares are perfect squares. All of them, perfect or not, are numbers, but not all numbers are perfect or non-perfect squares. You can add the word number after perfect square or square, but you can't attach the name of square after any number. I think you've been misinterpreting my claims.

@Vlinder007 The whole point of having the term perfect square is to differentiate it from the squares that aren't perfect. You run into squares a lot more in math (at least in my math courses for my degree) than you do perfect squares. That's the argument I'm making. Perfect squares and squares are different things in most cases with some overlap because all perfect squares are squares, but not all squares are perfect squares. All of them, perfect or not, are numbers, but not all numbers are perfect or non-perfect squares. You can add the word number after perfect square or square, but you can't attach the name of square after any number. I think you've been misinterpreting my claims.

@TheCelestialFox but what DD is saying is that a squared number is not the same as a SQUARE NUMBER    a SQUARE NUMBER  means something very specific

@TheCelestialFox but what DD is saying is that a squared number is not the same as a SQUARE NUMBER    a SQUARE NUMBER  means something very specific

@Vlinder007 I disagree with you about squaring anything, but not calling the product a squared number. Again, if you square PI, the result is the squared value of PI, it is a squared number that resulted from squaring PI. If you don't call it a square, what do you call it then?

It's a case of hierarchy to me. All squares are products, but not all products are squares. Likewise all perfect squares are squares, but not all squares are perfect. And all perfect squares are numbers, but not all numbers are perfect squares.

@Vlinder007 I disagree with you about squaring anything, but not calling the product a squared number. Again, if you square PI, the result is the squared value of PI, it is a squared number that resulted from squaring PI. If you don't call it a square, what do you call it then?

It's a case of hierarchy to me. All squares are products, but not all products are squares. Likewise all perfect squares are squares, but not all squares are perfect. And all perfect squares are numbers, but not all numbers are perfect squares.

@TheCelestialFox by your argument all numbers are square numbers   ao why even have a term like square numbers   if by your reasoning all numbers are squared   so we can just stick to  calling it  a number  why have another term if its useless

@TheCelestialFox by your argument all numbers are square numbers   ao why even have a term like square numbers   if by your reasoning all numbers are squared   so we can just stick to  calling it  a number  why have another term if its useless

@Vlinder007 I completely forgot this thread existed lol. I left to enjoy my life like I said I would. Nice to see the guy I was talking with originally is still here though, that's funny.

Anyway, the question presented in the video asks for a the sum of two smaller squares, yes (as a sum of anything typically includes numbers smaller than the sum, not including negative values). My whole point, and the OP's point, was that the term square was not defined so theoretically, hypothetically, in the land of possibility that sum could've been made by squaring any number. You can square anything from decimals, to square roots, to whole numbers. However, my thing was that you have perfect squares and then you have squares. A perfect square is a square, but a square is not always a perfect square. You can square PI, which gets you 9.8796..., but is that a perfect square? No, because it's not a whole number being squared to get another whole number, but it's a square. You can square 3 and get 9, which makes it a perfect square on top of being a square. So for the sake of the question, because it was not asked to get the sum using PERFECT squares, but rather just squares which can be completely arbitrary for any of those possible answers any of those answers could be correct. However if they phrased the question saying it had to be done with perfect squares, then yes, 25 is the only answer that works.

@TheCelestialFox he is not arguing the math.  He points out that terms like square numbers mean 1 4 9 16  etc.  Thats the definition of the word   like cubic numbers mean  1 8 27  etc.    Any number can be squared or cubed   but is not referred to as square numbers as a general rule  or general definition of the word

@TheCelestialFox he is not arguing the math.  He points out that terms like square numbers mean 1 4 9 16  etc.  Thats the definition of the word   like cubic numbers mean  1 8 27  etc.    Any number can be squared or cubed   but is not referred to as square numbers as a general rule  or general definition of the word

@TheCelestialFox the question said is a square and the sum of two SMALLER square numbers

@TheCelestialFox the question said is a square and the sum of two SMALLER square numbers

Not sure if anyone pointed this out as of yet, but "Theoretically" here as presented demands an abstraction from the original assumption that one and only one answer is correct. So while your definition holds, technically the question is valid as presented, under the assumption there exist only one correct answer. Ergo, we are to assume the stricter scenario.

Not sure if anyone pointed this out as of yet, but "Theoretically" here as presented demands an abstraction from the original assumption that one and only one answer is correct. So while your definition holds, technically the question is valid as presented, under the assumption there exist only one correct answer. Ergo, we are to assume the stricter scenario.

Welp I just had a heart attack trying to read these replies R.I.P.

Welp I just had a heart attack trying to read these replies R.I.P.

@fisher hey moron, you are right. i am definitely stupid to PAST any math test.

@fisher hey moron, you are right. i am definitely stupid to PAST any math test.

@Gabe Weisdorfer not quite sure what you meant by that comment. to be more precise, not sure to which comment you are replying exactly.

@Gabe Weisdorfer not quite sure what you meant by that comment. to be more precise, not sure to which comment you are replying exactly.

@D D People in 3rd grade have taken 4 years of math. That doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

@D D People in 3rd grade have taken 4 years of math. That doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

@Neonlaser yeah, because grammar is what is so important in this discussion.

@Neonlaser yeah, because grammar is what is so important in this discussion.

@D D Also, the term "a term 'prefect square number'" does not exist in grammar. It should be "The term 'perfect square number.'"

ALSO, WILL YOU STOP ARGUING?!? THE DEFINITION OF A SQUARE NUMBER IS AN INTEGER MULTIPLIED BY ITSELF. I N T E G E R.

@D D Also, the term "a term 'prefect square number'" does not exist in grammar. It should be "The term 'perfect square number.'"

ALSO, WILL YOU STOP ARGUING?!? THE DEFINITION OF A SQUARE NUMBER IS AN INTEGER MULTIPLIED BY ITSELF. I N T E G E R.

Actually according to the definition presented by MathIsFun, it must be an integer multiplied by itself. Although I understand your reasoning, the square root of 15 and so on are not integers in the first place, so your logic is incorrect. Here is the definition copied exactly:

The result of multiplying an integer (not a fraction) by itself.

Actually according to the definition presented by MathIsFun, it must be an integer multiplied by itself. Although I understand your reasoning, the square root of 15 and so on are not integers in the first place, so your logic is incorrect. Here is the definition copied exactly:

The result of multiplying an *integer* (not a fraction) by itself.

@D D Damn you know how to cheat on tests in math class cause you are to stupid to past any math test

@D D Damn you know how to cheat on tests in math class cause you are to stupid to past any math test

LOL’d during this reddit like thread🤣 esp at the people forcing their PC agenda on mathematics! “Multiple people can be right!”

By Euler’s ball sack they sure as fuck can not!

This whole clusterfuck of a thread originated by people NOT understanding how the fuck mathematics works.

Like homey DD said:

step 1. Everybody agrees on a definition.

Step 2. You then reason from those definitions.

Step 3. You (or peers) try to make sure you didn’t make any mistakes by deviating from definitions.

You CAN NOT!!!! just make up your own definitions.

I totally understand the point fox is trying to make. It seems logical BUT IT’S WRONG because that’s not the definition we agreed upon.

Perfect square or square numbers are 1,4,9,16.... or any number that is the square of an integer. 1^2=1, 2^2=4, 3^2=9, 4^2=16 for example.

As you can see 15 is NOT in this list because it is not a square number. (And because perfect square means the same thing, it’s not that either.)

There is no integer between 3 and 4 that you can square to give you 15.

Because 3^2 gives you 9 and 4^2 gives you 16.

But fox keeps insisting you can square the root of 15. WHICH IS TRUE.

But the root of 15 IS NOT AN INTEGER!!!

And that my friends is the clusterfuck of coming up with your own definitions.

So if you wanna argue w a mathematician, if you’re doing mathematics in school or if you’re studying it for fun.

Then DRILL the definitions into your head and reason on from there.

I sincerely hope no one is confused anymore ab why poor and patient DD is right.

Mapplesauce not rational brother, integer. Rationals are fractions. (Naturals are whole numbers from 1 up. Integers are the negatives, 0 and the naturals. Rationals are the fractions p/q where p is an integer and q a natural number. Real numbers all the numbers I just mentioned plus the ones you can’t express in a fraction. Complex numbers are the reals plus the i numbers.)

Mapplesauce not rational brother, integer. Rationals are fractions. (Naturals are whole numbers from 1 up. Integers are the negatives, 0 and the naturals. Rationals are the fractions p/q where p is an integer and q a natural number. Real numbers all the numbers I just mentioned plus the ones you can’t express in a fraction. Complex numbers are the reals plus the i numbers.)

Although you are correct, it is beyond obvious what was meant by the question. Your excuse is invalid.

Although you are correct, it is beyond obvious what was meant by the question. Your excuse is invalid.

yall making things complicated. The question made perfect sense.

yall making things complicated. The question made perfect sense.

@HaobinLu oh.my.god.dude. you are so right. i am so fucking dumb.

Fields medal is on your way bro.

@HaobinLu oh.my.god.dude. you are so right. i am so fucking dumb.

Fields medal is on your way bro.

@D D if you square 2,64... you get seven. If you square 3 you get nine. Nine + seven = 16. Yes, 2,645... is also a number.

@D D if you square 2,64... you get seven. If you square 3 you get nine. Nine + seven = 16. Yes, 2,645... is also a number.

@D D if you square a non-integer value you can get a perfect square easely you stupid piece of human society. Just pick your non-integer value carefully.

@D D if you square a non-integer value you can get a perfect square easely you stupid piece of human society. Just pick your non-integer value carefully.

@Arturo Arellano oh yeah man, this discussion was definitely hilarious.

it was the most fun i've had since i was 7 years old and got my milk teeth to fall out.

@Arturo Arellano oh yeah man, this discussion was definitely hilarious.

it was the most fun i've had since i was 7 years old and got my milk teeth to fall out.

@D D oh i finally read through everything man you have so much patience and these people who are complaining about language wont be able to handle when this happens to them, i have dealt with someone like that in the past and have never been able to handle it this well i really applaud you my friend.

@D D oh i finally read through everything man you have so much patience and these people who are complaining about language wont be able to handle when this happens to them, i have dealt with someone like that in the past and have never been able to handle it this well i really applaud you my friend.

@D D i salute you honestly if i was in this conversation i would be ripping my hair off by now

@D D i salute you honestly if i was in this conversation i would be ripping my hair off by now

They should have specified "integer numbers" instead of "numbers"

They should have specified "integer numbers" instead of "numbers"

@Narendra modi (communist version) Please, <i>please</i> tell me you didn't write that after actually reading the entire thread...

@Narendra modi (communist version) Please, _please_ tell me you didn't write that after actually reading the entire thread...

they're not as smarty-pants as we all are so just tone down to their level

they're not as smarty-pants as we all are so just tone down to their level

Theoretically you're a fucking idiot too

Theoretically you're a fucking idiot too

@D D
4.84 is also a square number but it is not counted in perfect square because its root has decimal. Were as 81 is a perfect square because its root is a real number.

@D D
4.84 is also a square number but it is not counted in *perfect square* because its root has decimal. Were as 81 is a *perfect square* because its root is a real number.

Bro underroot 13 is greater than 4,<br>And Question clearly says smaller square no.

Bro underroot 13 is greater than 4,
And Question clearly says smaller square no.

@Cheydinal You didn't find any loophole in the question though. You are aware of that, right?

@Cheydinal You didn't find any loophole in the question though. You are aware of that, right?

@Memoline M Yeah, I just took a few lectures on law for my economics college course, so I already kind of got into the mindset of looking for loopholes

@Memoline M Yeah, I just took a few lectures on law for my economics college course, so I already kind of got into the mindset of looking for loopholes

@D D Yeah,u did fine in the beginning...I read it whole...it was admirable till u used the F word , calling all retards . <b>Discussion</b> is positive till slangs are involved . U seemed respectable ,so such language didn't suit ur knowledge,so I said what I thought .

@D D Yeah,u did fine in the beginning...I read it whole...it was admirable till u used the F word , calling all retards . *Discussion* is positive till slangs are involved . U seemed respectable ,so such language didn't suit ur knowledge,so I said what I thought .

@Memoline M "A true genius won't need his/her degree to prove his/her calibre . He would outwit others with his arguments , he won't lose patience and firm belief in existing areas of knowledge being unquestionable -isn't his trait ."

I can see you didn't read even half of this discussion to claim something like that. I tried to explain it to him calmly for 10 straight replies, and he stil didn't get it. Also, he is the one who first said that I didn't pay any attention math class, as well as he first posted about his career.

It wasn't me showing off that I am a big deal dude, I was just showing that the topic regarding this dicsussion is something I know and I've studied, so he could take my replies more seriously. I surely don't have a need to prove my worth on the internet to unknown people.

@Memoline M "A true genius won't need his/her degree to prove his/her calibre . He would outwit others with his arguments , he won't lose patience and firm belief in existing areas of knowledge being unquestionable -isn't his trait ."

I can see you didn't read even half of this discussion to claim something like that. I tried to explain it to him calmly for 10 straight replies, and he stil didn't get it. Also, he is the one who first said that I didn't pay any attention math class, as well as he first posted about his career.

It wasn't me showing off that I am a big deal dude, I was just showing that the topic regarding this dicsussion is something I know and I've studied, so he could take my replies more seriously. I surely don't have a need to prove my worth on the internet to unknown people.

@Memoline M That comment made by someone else was just plain stupid. Why would it need to say two DIFFERENT square numbers? If there was a square number that is a sum of two smaller, EQUAL square numbers, that would also be the correct answer.
No given answers in this question satisfies that. Not 16, not 25, not 36 and not 49.

To be even more precise, there is no such a number in general. It is a known fact in mathematics.

If a, b and c are integers and equation a2 + b2 = c2 is satisfied, then a and b can't be the same parity.

If a and b are not the same parity, it pretty much means they can't be equal; meaning that a2 and b2 are not equal.

Therefore, there isn't a square number that can be a sum of two same square numbers.

@Memoline M That comment made by someone else was just plain stupid. Why would it need to say two DIFFERENT square numbers? If there was a square number that is a sum of two smaller, EQUAL square numbers, that would also be the correct answer.
No given answers in this question satisfies that. Not 16, not 25, not 36 and not 49.

To be even more precise, there is no such a number in general. It is a known fact in mathematics.

If a, b and c are integers and equation a2 + b2 = c2 is satisfied, then a and b can't be the same parity.

If a and b are not the same parity, it pretty much means they can't be equal; meaning that a2 and b2 are not equal.

Therefore, there isn't a square number that can be a sum of two same square numbers.

@D D Was the statement on if u added perfect or if the question should have had the word-perfect ...to be more specific leading to only one single interpretation ? Someone said only should be mentioned ,leaving no space for consideration of atmost and atleast . Someone said two *different smaller* should be mentioned as it can be taken as same . Well we all know it's a show after all ,it won't spoon feed ,we have to get the logical meaning ourselves but confusion is not something unexpected .

@D D Was the statement on if u added *perfect* or if the question should have had the word-*perfect* ...to be more specific leading to only one single interpretation ? Someone said *only* should be mentioned ,leaving no space for consideration of *atmost* and *atleast* . Someone said *two *different* smaller* should be mentioned as it can be taken as *same* . Well we all know it's a show after all ,it won't spoon feed ,we have to get the logical meaning ourselves but confusion is not something unexpected .

@Memoline M "He just wanted word perfect to fit in" - Since I copy-pasted the definition of number square, which shows that it is equal to perfect square, a word PERFECT is already fitted in.

My whole point in discussion was that people are not able to make up terms on their own, adding or subtracting words whenever they want. Mathematics is all about precision; and it is quite important to use terms properly as they are defined.

Just imagine this for a moment: that people use a term "root number" instead of just "root".

So they will be like "A root number of a number 16 is number 4." Don't you think that sounds kind of idiotic? If you used something like that, academics would laugh at you.

@Memoline M "He just wanted word perfect to fit in" - Since I copy-pasted the definition of number square, which shows that it is equal to perfect square, a word PERFECT is already fitted in.

My whole point in discussion was that people are not able to make up terms on their own, adding or subtracting words whenever they want. Mathematics is all about precision; and it is quite important to use terms properly as they are defined.

Just imagine this for a moment: that people use a term "root number" instead of just "root".

So they will be like "A root number of a number 16 is number 4." Don't you think that sounds kind of idiotic? If you used something like that, academics would laugh at you.

A true genius won't need his/her degree to prove his/her calibre . He would outwit others with his arguments , he won't lose patience and firm belief in existing areas of knowledge being unquestionable -isn't his trait .

A true genius won't need his/her degree to prove his/her calibre . He would outwit others with his arguments , he won't lose patience and firm belief in existing areas of knowledge being unquestionable -isn't his trait .

@D D
You might be right being a major...1)that a perfect square and square number are same n
2) no such word as perfect square number exists .
But he was not saying something irrelevant,u shouldn't be so arrogant. I am immature in math but I still know ur points are the globally accepted ones,as kids when asked of square numbers,we used perfect squares quite thoughtlessly but maths is not just believing existing proofs but to question and English is not static ,it evolves as per our convenience . He just wanted the word perfect fit in ,to make things clear as all numbers are squares (but not all are square numbers-agreed). Being a knowledgeable person,you shouldn't belittle others,instead just prove your point calmly .

@D D
You might be right being a major...1)that a perfect square and square number are same n
2) no such word as perfect square number exists .
But he was not saying something irrelevant,u shouldn't be so arrogant. I am immature in math but I still know ur points are the globally accepted ones,as kids when asked of square numbers,we used perfect squares quite thoughtlessly but maths is not just believing existing proofs but to question and English is not static ,it evolves as per our convenience . He just wanted the word *perfect* fit in ,to make things clear as all numbers are squares (but not all are square numbers-agreed). Being a knowledgeable person,you shouldn't belittle others,instead just prove your point calmly .

@Cheydinal You found another ...language v/s maths... Was the question specific,is the real discussion. Even though some sentences are clear as per global acceptance but still there is scope left for little ambiguity . And that is what adds fun to life .

@Cheydinal You found another ...language v/s maths... Was the question specific,is the real discussion. Even though some sentences are clear as per global acceptance but still there is scope left for little ambiguity . And that is what adds fun to life .

@D D if he wasnt trolling, that man obviously got his degree at Devry

@D D if he wasnt trolling, that man obviously got his degree at Devry

D D looks like he was inventing his own math there lol, wouldn’t be surprised if he’s lying about his work and offers too

D D looks like he was inventing his own math there lol, wouldn’t be surprised if he’s lying about his work and offers too

@D D I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU AS A FRESH COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ELECTRONICS GRADUATE, LMAO EVEN I KNOW THERE IS NOTHING CALLED A "PERFECT SQUARE NUMBER",

"PERFECT SQUARE" IS THE RIGHT TERM FOR A "SQUARE NUMBER" WHICH ARE JUST INTEGERS THAT ARE MADE UP BY SQUARING OTHER INTEGERS, WHY DO YOU NEED TO TOUCH THE MATHEMATICAL PARTS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE VOCAB PART OF IT SMFH

THAT SYSTEMS DESIGN ENGINEER WITH HIS ADD NUMBER TO THE END STATEMENT MADE ME LOSE SOME BRAINCELLS

@D D I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU AS A FRESH COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ELECTRONICS GRADUATE, LMAO EVEN I KNOW THERE IS NOTHING CALLED A "PERFECT SQUARE NUMBER",

"PERFECT SQUARE" IS THE RIGHT TERM FOR A "SQUARE NUMBER" WHICH ARE JUST INTEGERS THAT ARE MADE UP BY SQUARING OTHER INTEGERS, WHY DO YOU NEED TO TOUCH THE MATHEMATICAL PARTS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE VOCAB PART OF IT SMFH

THAT SYSTEMS DESIGN ENGINEER WITH HIS ADD NUMBER TO THE END STATEMENT MADE ME LOSE SOME BRAINCELLS

I am actually divided if he trolled me or not.

The problem is, he was trying way too hard for that to be just 'trolling'. But again, after repeating myself for 20 fucking comments, I can see there is possibility he was trolling. guess we'll never know

I am actually divided if he trolled me or not.

The problem is, he was trying way too hard for that to be just 'trolling'. But again, after repeating myself for 20 fucking comments, I can see there is possibility he was trolling. guess we'll never know

@D D bless you for trying, but I'm pretty sure he's just trolling you, nobody is actually 'that' stupid. It's like arguing with a flat earther at some point you just have to walk away.

Never argue with idiots, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

@D D bless you for trying, but I'm pretty sure he's just trolling you, nobody is actually 'that' stupid. It's like arguing with a flat earther at some point you just have to walk away.

Never argue with idiots, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Migue24680 Si "número cuadrado perfecto" es lo mismo que "número cuadrado", quiere decir que no se puede hablar de "número cuadrado" para los cuadrados de números no enteros porque lo estaríamos equiparando a un "número cuadrado perfecto".

Es decir, que la coletilla "perfecto" es redundante en este caso pues no diferencia nada. Y, de hacerlo (es decir, de establecer una diferencia entre número cuadrado perfecto y no perfecto), habría que desechar el término "número cuadrado", a secas. Al menos tal y como viene en su definición de la wikipedia (que debe de ser el cuadrado de un número entero).

Un saludo.

Migue24680 Si "número cuadrado perfecto" es lo mismo que "número cuadrado", quiere decir que no se puede hablar de "número cuadrado" para los cuadrados de números no enteros porque lo estaríamos equiparando a un "número cuadrado perfecto".

Es decir, que la coletilla "perfecto" es redundante en este caso pues no diferencia nada. Y, de hacerlo (es decir, de establecer una diferencia entre número cuadrado perfecto y no perfecto), habría que desechar el término "número cuadrado", a secas. Al menos tal y como viene en su definición de la wikipedia (que debe de ser el cuadrado de un número entero).

Un saludo.

MINEIRO We'd still be in the stone age if it wasn't for mathematics.

Well, maybe I've exaggerated a bit. We'd be in the Iron Age. Since then, maths were essential for Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.

Maths is the language or code the Universe is written. And it has many applications for social science too (economy as the main one).

I can asure you, as an aerospace engineer student, maths are pretty important for human development. Without maths there would not be physics or any way possible to measure economics data. Without physics there would not be engineering (it wouldn't exist either without math's applications in engineering by itself, like geometry) or any industrial revolution (and of course any digital era), and without money, commerce would be extremely difficult and primitive.

Yes, definitely in the Iron Age.

MINEIRO We'd still be in the stone age if it wasn't for mathematics.

Well, maybe I've exaggerated a bit. We'd be in the Iron Age. Since then, maths were essential for Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.

Maths is the language or code the Universe is written. And it has many applications for social science too (economy as the main one).

I can asure you, as an aerospace engineer student, maths are pretty important for human development. Without maths there would not be physics or any way possible to measure economics data. Without physics there would not be engineering (it wouldn't exist either without math's applications in engineering by itself, like geometry) or any industrial revolution (and of course any digital era), and without money, commerce would be extremely difficult and primitive.

Yes, definitely in the Iron Age.

TheCelestialFox I think what DD tries to state is that "square number" =/= "number's square"
Any real number that is not an integer is not included in the first definition (which is the one the show uses).

I find your discussion even more weird as I'm Spanish and not English speaker. But I think I've catched what each of you wanted to explain. It's only a matter of a word's definition. And, in that case, DD was correct.

Have both of you a nice day.

TheCelestialFox I think what DD tries to state is that "square number" =/= "number's square"
Any real number that is not an integer is not included in the first definition (which is the one the show uses).

I find your discussion even more weird as I'm Spanish and not English speaker. But I think I've catched what each of you wanted to explain. It's only a matter of a word's definition. And, in that case, DD was correct.

Have both of you a nice day.

That not “theoretically” true. A squared square root cancel each other out, so nothing actually happens. You didn’t square 15 when you square rooted it. If this is your argument, then it is just as viable to say, “the square root of two numbers added together...” which is NOT the question given.  In math, there must be consistency and precision. Changing the question to fit a “theory” is not consistent.  It is also imprecise to say “all options are correct,” because that means there are infinite correct answers, which makes the question pointless, and therefore, non-theoretical and nonsense.

That not “theoretically” true. A squared square root cancel each other out, so nothing actually happens. You didn’t square 15 when you square rooted it. If this is your argument, then it is just as viable to say, “the square root of two numbers added together...” which is NOT the question given.  In math, there must be consistency and precision. Changing the question to fit a “theory” is not consistent.  It is also imprecise to say “all options are correct,” because that means there are infinite correct answers, which makes the question pointless, and therefore, non-theoretical and nonsense.

When you are too smart to get it right...

When you are too smart to get it right...

@D D you don't deserve any medal the way you handled it, sorry.

@D D you don't deserve any medal the way you handled it, sorry.

@Verdi As someone who owns a master's degree in mathematics and works as a financial analyst making a lot of money, I can assure you physics is not the only field using math or else I could've easily called myself a physicist.

@Verdi As someone who owns a master's degree in mathematics and works as a financial analyst making a lot of money, I can assure you physics is not the only field using math or else I could've easily called myself a physicist.

@Verdi it's selling mathematics short to say its only applications are in physics. Maths is a very absolute science, often much more exact than physics. I study physics but have a great appreciation for maths, even if I often discard everything they say because it's irrelevant to my solution

@Verdi it's selling mathematics short to say its only applications are in physics. Maths is a very absolute science, often much more exact than physics. I study physics but have a great appreciation for maths, even if I often discard everything they say because it's irrelevant to my solution

I completely agree with you tidingcao, a guy could've sue them and win.

I completely agree with you tidingcao, a guy could've sue them and win.

MINEIRO math is also extremely important in programming, finance, banking/money, solving number related problems, and a lot more. Please search it up!

MINEIRO math is also extremely important in programming, finance, banking/money, solving number related problems, and a lot more. Please search it up!

@D D Stop with your childish arrogance dude. You can not be rude with everybody just because you're a "4th year student in mathematics". The only value of math its because we use in Physics as a tool. Otherwise you guys in mathematics have the same status as clowns or actors. Or street singers. Its not really Science.

Anyway, in the specific subject you are right.

@D D Stop with your childish arrogance dude. You can not be rude with everybody just because you're a "4th year student in mathematics". The only value of math its because we use in Physics as a tool. Otherwise you guys in mathematics have the same status as clowns or actors. Or street singers. Its not really Science.

Anyway, in the specific subject you are right.

Here are my previous comments in response to hopefully clear things up:

1. So by that logic, every positive number is a square number? Because 1.4262943984 and 4.3243622354 would be square numbers from your definition. If this is what you are saying, then what is the point of the term "square number."

2. I agree that absolutely every number can be squared. I also agree that the non perfect square numbers you are referring to are squares, or square numbers in a sense, but my question is: why would you call these non perfect squares "squares" or "square numbers?" Most often, when "square" or "square number" is used, it is referring to a perfect square, not any random non perfect square number. If we called non perfect squares "square numbers," then we could call every positive number a square number. You are right that these non perfect square numbers could technically be called "squares" or "square numbers," but there is no point in doing this, as it would just be unnecessary and confusing.

3. Read these definitions of a square number.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/square-number.html
"The number we get after multiplying an integer (not a fraction) by itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number
"In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself."

It doesn't say it has to be the sum of ONLY two square numbers, so you could say 49=47+1^2+1^2

It doesn't say it has to be the sum of ONLY two square numbers, so you could say 49=47+1^2+1^2

I think I should get a fucking golden medal for this whole discussion.

What amazes me even more that, even though I linked the definition of it 10 times already, and others did as well, there are still people like @Abdalla Ahmed who keep commenting "But they said square numbers, not perfect square numbers".

Did people lose their ability to read? Or were they never able to comprehend a sentence in a logic way?

I think I should get a fucking golden medal for this whole discussion.

What amazes me even more that, even though I linked the definition of it 10 times already, and others did as well, there are still people like @Abdalla Ahmed who keep commenting "But they said square numbers, not perfect square numbers".

Did people lose their ability to read? Or were they never able to comprehend a sentence in a logic way?

@D D  Wow I salute your patience in explaining the correct definition.

@D D  Wow I salute your patience in explaining the correct definition.

@Abdalla Ahmed, the definition of "square number" is "The number we get after multiplying an integer by itself." so no, only 25 is right.

@Abdalla Ahmed, the definition of "square number" is "The number we get after multiplying an integer by itself." so no, only 25 is right.

@Nicky Tannock they aren't trolling. What he's saying is you can find the root of any positive rational number. Which makes it square. I'm pretty sure the guy being asked didnt really think that far ahead, as I can tell he froze when the word square number was said, suggesting his knowledge in math is very limited, or he's super stressed out. That why he lost at the end

@Nicky Tannock they aren't trolling. What he's saying is you can find the root of any positive rational number. Which makes it square. I'm pretty sure the guy being asked didnt really think that far ahead, as I can tell he froze when the word square number was said, suggesting his knowledge in math is very limited, or he's super stressed out. That why he lost at the end

But they said square numbers, not perfect square numbers. Yindingcao is totally correct. All of them are right. It's just that there is a BETTER answer which is 25

But they said square numbers, not perfect square numbers. Yindingcao is totally correct. All of them are right. It's just that there is a BETTER answer which is 25

Might be in Spanish, but again, there is no such thing in english vocabulary. I even tried googling it, and went for few pages and didn't see one single result for "perfect square number".

However, that isn't really main topic of the discussion. The main topic is someone misinterpreted "square number".

Might be in Spanish, but again, there is no such thing in english vocabulary. I even tried googling it, and went for few pages and didn't see one single result for "perfect square number".

However, that isn't really main topic of the discussion. The main topic is someone misinterpreted "square number".

In Spanish, it is much more common to hear the term "cuadrado perfecto" (perfect square) than "número cuadrado" (square number). However, the term "número cuadrado perfecto" (perfect square number) is also considered valid.
I leave here an extract of the Wikipedia in Spanish:
Un número cuadrado perfecto (perfect square number) en matemáticas, o un número cuadrado (square number), es un número entero que es el cuadrado de algún otro.

Maybe all this has been a misunderstanding in the language.

In Spanish, it is much more common to hear the term "cuadrado perfecto" (perfect square) than "número cuadrado" (square number). However, the term "número cuadrado perfecto" (perfect square number) is also considered valid.
I leave here an extract of the Wikipedia in Spanish:
Un *número cuadrado perfecto* (perfect square number) en matemáticas, o un *número cuadrado* (square number), es un número entero que es el cuadrado de algún otro.

Maybe all this has been a misunderstanding in the language.

Seems like thecelestialfox has given up.

Seems like thecelestialfox has given up.

@yidingcao Pythagoras theorem makes this ez as cake

@yidingcao Pythagoras theorem makes this ez as cake

No one is becoming the new Einstein because of that. It's simple math, everyone understood what the question wanted from the participant and there's no need to be fuckin literal at those questions.
What would you do? Answer: - HUH DUH, EVERY ALTERNATIVE IS CORRECT BECAUSE OF QUIK MAFFS.
What would happen? - YOU LOST - Game Fuckin Over. Lolollolol.
Everything is situational. If you're smart enough to understand maths deeply, you probably have enough IQ to understand how pointless is to apply that logic at this situation.

No one is becoming the new Einstein because of that. It's simple math, everyone understood what the question wanted from the participant and there's no need to be fuckin literal at those questions.
What would you do? Answer: - HUH DUH, EVERY ALTERNATIVE IS CORRECT BECAUSE OF QUIK MAFFS.
What would happen? - YOU LOST - Game Fuckin Over. Lolollolol.
Everything is situational. If you're smart enough to understand maths deeply, you probably have enough IQ to understand how pointless is to apply that logic at this situation.

PEOPLE! PEOPLE, PEOPLE... calm down. We're on YouTube. There's no need for that. Dear lord. Hahahahaha.

PEOPLE! PEOPLE, PEOPLE... calm down. We're on YouTube. There's no need for that. Dear lord. Hahahahaha.

This guy actually sued the show. Google it.

This guy actually sued the show. Google it.

Jesus Christ the intelligence is strong in this thread.

Semantically square number = perfect square. And a perfect square is a product of a rational number multiplied itself. Therefore not all of the choices can be a square number.

I'm going to assume 99% of the people in this thread are trolling for the sake of my faith in humanity

Jesus Christ the intelligence is strong in this thread.

Semantically square number = perfect square. And a perfect square is a product of a rational number multiplied itself. Therefore not all of the choices can be a square number.

I'm going to assume 99% of the people in this thread are trolling for the sake of my faith in humanity

yidingcao Besides if all the options were “theoretically correct” why were they wrong? The people who make these questions have to be very precise with their wording and answer choices to avoid any sort of controversy.

yidingcao Besides if all the options were “theoretically correct” why were they wrong? The people who make these questions have to be very precise with their wording and answer choices to avoid any sort of controversy.

Prolific Pineapples expect the unexpected

Prolific Pineapples expect the unexpected

Im so happy I was born hot, and was able to make money by beeing a hooker. I don't have to deal with this shit. Anyway, who wants me?

Im so happy I was born hot, and was able to make money by beeing a hooker. I don't have to deal with this shit. Anyway, who wants me?

Numbers must be integer if not mentioned otherwise

Numbers must be integer if not mentioned otherwise

Damn, I just read all these comments ... doesn't even matter who's right anymore ... both are idiots.

Damn, I just read all these comments ... doesn't even matter who's right anymore ... both are idiots.

You've no idea what square number means apparently. Almost only D D in the reply chain knows what he's talking about

You've no idea what square number means apparently. Almost only D D in the reply chain knows what he's talking about

Janki Sagar, notice that the definition of a "Perfect Square" is the same as the definition of a "Square Number", and there's no definition of a "Perfect Square Number" as being something that is different from either a "Perfect Square" or a "Square Number". All of which is D D's point.

Janki Sagar, notice that the definition of a "Perfect Square" is the same as the definition of a "Square Number", and there's no definition of a "Perfect Square Number" as being something that is different from either a "Perfect Square" or a "Square Number". All of which is D D's point.

@D D
 https://www.mathwarehouse.com/arithmetic/numbers/what-is-a-perfect-square.php

@D D
 https://www.mathwarehouse.com/arithmetic/numbers/what-is-a-perfect-square.php

The discussion can't go without insulting when you provide proof of something to be true, and the other side does not understand it, especially if the proof is consisted of one single sentence.

Just imagine this.

You keep saying a duck is not a bird.

I keep posting you the official definition which shows that duck is a bird.

You keep denying it.

I post the definition of a duck 6 times to you, where it clearly says that a duck is a bird.

You keep denying it.

At that time the insulting should start pretty much.

The discussion can't go without insulting when you provide proof of something to be true, and the other side does not understand it, especially if the proof is consisted of one single sentence.

Just imagine this.

You keep saying a duck is not a bird.

I keep posting you the official definition which shows that duck is a bird.

You keep denying it.

I post the definition of a duck 6 times to you, where it clearly says that a duck is a bird.

You keep denying it.

At that time the insulting should start pretty much.

The question was pretty clear. I don't have a fucking calculator...

The question was pretty clear. I don't have a fucking calculator...

After reading half of this disscussion may I just ask why you all aren't cooperating.<br>This conversation could've gone way more peacefull (You know... without insulting people as having less knowledge than a first grader) and you would also be able to find a solution.

After reading half of this disscussion may I just ask why you all aren't cooperating.
This conversation could've gone way more peacefull (You know... without insulting people as having less knowledge than a first grader) and you would also be able to find a solution.

I agree that absolutely every number can be squared. I also agree that the non perfect square numbers you are referring to are squares, or square numbers in a sense, but my question is: why would you call these non perfect squares "squares" or "square numbers?" Most often, when "square" or "square number" is used, it is referring to a perfect square, not any random non perfect square number. If we called non perfect squares "square numbers," then we could call every positive number a square number. You are right that these non perfect square numbers could technically be called "squares" or "square numbers," but there is  no point in doing this, as it would just be unnecessary and confusing.

I agree that absolutely every number can be squared. I also agree that the non perfect square numbers you are referring to are squares, or square numbers in a sense, but my question is: why would you call these non perfect squares "squares" or "square numbers?" Most often, when "square" or "square number" is used, it is referring to a perfect square, not any random non perfect square number. If we called non perfect squares "square numbers," then we could call every positive number a square number. You are right that these non perfect square numbers could technically be called "squares" or "square numbers," but there is  no point in doing this, as it would just be unnecessary and confusing.

@jz I'm saying that absolutely any number can be squared, however, HOWEVER, a perfect square is the multiplcation of an integer, which is defined as a whole number, a value without fractions or decimals, with itself.

However, you can also square numbers that are NOT integers, like the decimals you presented. What would you call the products that result from the multiplication of a decimal with itself? They certainly wouldn't be integers. Thedefore it does not fit with the definition provided. It certainly would not be a perfect square by your own admission, that would nullify the mention that the numbers being multiplied have to be integers.

Work the rest out for yourself please, I can't make things simpler than I have already tried.

What I'm saying is that perfect square numbers are those that are integers from integers. You will never get a non-integer value from squaring an integer. But you will always get a non-integer value when squaring a non-integer. It's not a perfect square, it's a non-perfect square, so it's a simply a square number because something, not an integer, was squared to get the value. It's still a square, but it's not a perfect square. And adding number at the end of these terms is acceptable because they are indeed numbers.

There would be no point, you are correct.

If that was the case, a square number would simply be a positive number, and vice versa.

Don't mind him. Either he is trolling or he has no logic whatsoever to comprehend one single sentence properly.

There would be no point, you are correct.

If that was the case, a square number would simply be a positive number, and vice versa.

Don't mind him. Either he is trolling or he has no logic whatsoever to comprehend one single sentence properly.

Also, read these definitions of a square number.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/square-number.html
"The number we get after multiplying an integer (not a fraction) by itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number
"In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself."

Also, read these definitions of a square number.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/square-number.html
"The number we get after multiplying an integer (not a fraction) by itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number
"In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer;[1] in other words, it is the product of some integer with itself."

So by that logic, every positive number is a square number? Because 1.4262943984 and 4.3243622354 would be square numbers from your definition. If this is what you are saying, then what is the point of the term "square number."

So by that logic, every positive number is a square number? Because 1.4262943984 and 4.3243622354 would be square numbers from your definition. If this is what you are saying, then what is the point of the term "square number."

@Nicky Tannock That's the very point I'm making. Any number can be squared, however there are numbers that when squared result in a perfect square number, and others that when squared result in a square number that isn't perfect. Depending on if you are using an integer or a decimal, you will get one or the other. The fact that basic math and English have failed you both is astounding. And simply because someone doesn't agree with what you say because you don't understand the definitions you yourself provided (seems like a case of the copy-paste without actually reading and understanding what you're using like a lazy high schooler) doesn't make one a troll. It's a simple difference in views.

There's a difference in products when you square an integer and when you square a decimal, and by your own admission, they are not all square numbers, they are not all perfect square numbers, they have different characteristics that means they have different names to differentiate them.

I've already stated all I can in a respectful manner with utmost patience, it ends here though. You two enjoy your misguided ways of mathematics and English. I'll be enjoying my weekend from here on out. Thank you for the somewhat interesting debate though.

TheCelestialFox, any number can be squared, but not every number is a square number.
The definition of a square number has been given to you several times.
That being the case, you must be trolling, and so I won't be feeding you from this point on, and I suggest D D refrain from feeding you as well.

TheCelestialFox, any number can be squared, but not every number is a square number.
The definition of a square number has been given to you several times.
That being the case, you must be trolling, and so I won't be feeding you from this point on, and I suggest D D refrain from feeding you as well.

"What do you get when you square a non-integer value? A non-perfect square. Or simply a square number. "

Yup, the previous guy was right. You are deffo trolling. Nobody is that stupid.

"What do you get when you square a non-integer value? A non-perfect square. Or simply a square number. "

Yup, the previous guy was right. You are deffo trolling. Nobody is that stupid.

D D  Lol I said I would stop, but this comment you made is too funny. Riddle me this. What do you think the definition of an integer is? It is a WHOLE number, a number WITHOUT FRACTIONS. More definitively, it is a 32-bit whole number. What is a fraction? A number with a decimal. Can you square fractions? Yes, you can! If you actually did any of the math you claim to, you'd see that you work more with fractions and decimals than you do integers. So how do you differentiate between squaring an integer and squaring a non-integer value? Well squaring an integer results in another integer, a perfect square number. A number that is a perfect square. What do you get when you square a non-integer value? A non-perfect square. Or simply a square number. A number that is squared, but not perfect. Are you seeing how English and math coexist now? Also, considering that dictionaries don't define more than a single word at a time, neither perfect square or perfect square number, nor square number will show up, so... 🤷♀

Your anger and poor understanding of basic topics is truly laughable, yet sad and exhausting.

No way somebody would go that far with trolling. His tone in this conversation made me think he was serious.

No way somebody would go that far with trolling. His tone in this conversation made me think he was serious.

D D, I think they're trolling you, given that the definition of a square number is easy to find.

D D, I think they're trolling you, given that the definition of a square number is easy to find.

Holy fucking shit, I swear I have never met anyone dumber than you on youtube. It is literally impossible for someone to be THAT stupid to not understand a simple fucking definition of "square number".

AGAIN, I am going to copy the official definition of a SQUARE NUMBER:

A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer.
A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer.
A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer.
A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer.
A square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer.

SQUARE NUMBER = PERFECT SQUARE

Read that, slowly, for 5 times. Read that until it gets to you. Please, for the love of God, try to understand one simple sentence. It can't be simpler than that.

How is it even fucking possible that you majored in anything regarding engineering, when somebody lacks even 1% of logical thinking is beyond me.

A 5 year old would already understand what "square number" is.

SQUARES is not equal to SQUARE NUMBERS

You can't simply add words into terms and think they are the SAME

That's why I told you already that PERFECT SQUARE NUMBER is not a WORD in ENGLISH LANGUAGE, same as how SQUARE is not an equal term to SQUARE NUMBER.

Holy fucking shit.

@D D 15 would be a squared number of the root of 15 squared. That is 3.873 (rounded the decimal) squared. The value being squared is not a whole, rational number, so the product 15 is not a perfect square. However, you can still square the 3.873 to get 15. A perfect square is a number that is the product of a WHOLE, RATIONAL number multiplied with itself. What is a whole, rational number? Numbers like 1, 3, 15, 38, 1047, etc. Ie, they don't have a decimal or a fraction.

However that does not mean that numbers that do have decimals or fractions cannot be squared. They just won't be perfect squares. PI, 27.28573, even root values can be squared such as the root of 15, which is a decimal. Something like 3.87..., but typically root numbers are simply written as root x squared to save time. Are these squares? Yes! Are they perfect squares? No!

Again, using the term perfect square in place of perfect square number to save time in typing.

This is the last comment I'm making on this subject.  If you haven't understood English by now, you won't ever what with your stubborn ways. I'm not wasting any more of my time and energy explaining basic math to you. I have more important work to do. Happy commenting 4th year math student!

Let me copy something you've written in your first comment:

"What OP is saying is that technically, any number, including decimals, can have a square and since the question didn't specify that the squares had to have perfect roots (whole, rational values), it could, in theory, be any of those answers."

No, it can't. This is the problem of the whole discussion and mess you've made from the beginning.
Because of your lack of knowledge in the field of mathematics, I have to explain why this statement is completely incorrect.

It was stated in the question that you need to find "a square number".

You are implying that any positive real number is a square number because you can eventually find the root of it.

That is not fucking true. It is the 6th time I am telling you this.

Why is that not true?

Because it is mathematically defined what "square number" is.

Let me copy you the definiton on the wikipedia:

"In mathematics, a square number or perfect square is an integer that is the square of an integer"

So, tell me, how is it even remotely possible for other answers to be TRUE in this particular question in the video?

Is number 15 a square number? Of course it is not, because, even though that number has a root, that root is NOT AN INTEGER. Therefore, 15 can't be a square number.

Dude, even after all the discussion, you still think that "square number" IS NOT a perfect square.

How can I even continue with this discussion?

Just answer me this.

Do you think that 15 is a square number?

Dude, even after all the discussion, you still think that "square number" IS NOT a perfect square.

How can I even continue with this discussion?

Just answer me this.

Do you think that 15 is a square number?

@D D You are a very ignorant person, and there's no chance of helping you understand such a simple concept that other people in this thread have understood. I've given you example after example in the simplest forms I could manage. A 4th grader would understand at this point.

As a last resort, I'll say it like this: perfect square = Coke, perfect square number = Coca-Cola. Coke and Coca-Cola are the same thing, used interchangeably, and are synonymous. One just has the extra term. Likewise, perfect square and perfect square number are the same thing. They may be used interchangeably and are synonymous. A perfect square is a number. What do you get when take out "is a"? A "perfect square number". What is so hard about understanding how basic English works?

@D D You are a very ignorant person, and there's no chance of helping you understand such a simple concept that other people in this thread have understood. I've given you example after example in the simplest forms I could manage. A 4th grader would understand at this point.

As a last resort, I'll say it like this: perfect square = Coke, perfect square number = Coca-Cola. Coke and Coca-Cola are the same thing, used interchangeably, and are synonymous. One just has the extra term. Likewise, perfect square and perfect square number are the same thing. They may be used interchangeably and are synonymous. A perfect square is a number. What do you get when take out "is a"? A "perfect square number". What is so hard about understanding how basic English works?

"A perfect square in the end is a number. So when you add the word number at the end, it is still the same thing, a number. Again, they are synonymous terms, they mean the exact same thing. "

That's the whole point I am trying to teach you. You can't simply add "number" at the end of "perfect square", because there is no such term in english vocabulary.

There are only two terms: "a perfect square" AND "a square number".

Both of these terms are EQUAL (they both have the same definition).

We provided links to those definitions 5 TIMES ALREADY.

"A perfect square in the end is a number. So when you add the word number at the end, it is still the same thing, a number. Again, they are synonymous terms, they mean the exact same thing. "

That's the whole point I am trying to teach you. You can't simply add "number" at the end of "perfect square", because there is no such term in english vocabulary.

There are only two terms: "a perfect square" AND "a square number".

Both of these terms are EQUAL (they both have the same definition).

We provided links to those definitions 5 TIMES ALREADY.

Just read what Charles Luo already wrote. Even he linked you two links, but either you are too dumb to understand what is written in those links or you are just lazy to open them. It's simple as that.

Just read what Charles Luo already wrote. Even he linked you two links, but either you are too dumb to understand what is written in those links or you are just lazy to open them. It's simple as that.

you are literally not reading what i am writing.

you keep discussing the mathematical side of this whole mess, yet i am not trying to even touch it.

i am perfectly aware of what square number is.

Also, you, as a computer systems designer, don't have enough mathematical knowledge to compete against me, no matter how many math courses you took. I am not bragging, and I am not implying your uni career was easier, I am telling you that mathematics is not something you majored in. It's simple as that.

I've touched some of the mathematical branches that can only be done in a mathematics major, from topology to set theory. None of those are teached in IT universities.

you are literally not reading what i am writing.

you keep discussing the mathematical side of this whole mess, yet i am not trying to even touch it.

i am perfectly aware of what square number is.

Also, you, as a computer systems designer, don't have enough mathematical knowledge to compete against me, no matter how many math courses you took. I am not bragging, and I am not implying your uni career was easier, I am telling you that mathematics is not something you majored in. It's simple as that.

I've touched some of the mathematical branches that can only be done in a mathematics major, from topology to set theory. None of those are teached in IT universities.

Dude, are you even listening to what I am saying?

a term "perfect square number" does NOT exist.

seriously, how many times do I need to repeat this.

i already linked to you the definition of that term, TWICE, and you still don't get it.

let me repeat this to you once again. PERFECT SQUARE NUMBER DOES NOT EXIST. that term is non-existent in english vocabulary.

seriously, if i need to do this one more time...

Dude, are you even listening to what I am saying?

a term "perfect square number" does NOT exist.

seriously, how many times do I need to repeat this.

i already linked to you the definition of that term, TWICE, and you still don't get it.

let me repeat this to you once again. PERFECT SQUARE NUMBER DOES NOT EXIST. that term is non-existent in english vocabulary.

seriously, if i need to do this one more time...

@D D As a computer systems engineer who has done work for General Dynamics and had offers from Beoing and several from Amazon, and took an abundance of different math courses, I can tell you that I don't know how I can make this any more simple to you than I already have.

A perfect square in the end is a number. So when you add the word number at the end, it is still the same thing, a number. Again, they are synonymous terms, they mean the exact same thing. If I said red and red color, those are synonymous, red is a color, adding the word color at the end doesn't make it mean anything different.

Anything can be squared though. You don't always deal with perfect squares. The simplest example would be the quadratic formula. That does not always square root evenly, squaring the end value wouldn't give you a whole number. The term you'd get in the square root of the formula isn't always perfect square to be rooted leaving you with a decimal.

How about even simpler? If you go into your calculator and type in a random number with a decimal, like 3.68265, you can use the square function on it. It doesn't give you an error, it has a square, but would it be a perfect square, no. Likewise, because no one knows what root 15 or root 27 is off the top of their heads apart from it being a decimal, you just write it as root 15 squared and root 27 squared. Not a perfect square but a square.

Notice: I am using the term perfect square instead of perfect square number throughout because it's faster and one less word. Also, for someone who claims to be a senior in college, the level of maturity and respect you show is highly lacking, immature,  and downright pathetic for someone of your stature.

No. No. No. A square number/perfect square is an INTEGER. It is defined as n^2, where n is an integer and hence n^2 as well. Root 15 is not an integer. Only B from those options fits this criteria. These terms have precise definitions - you can't just impose your own opinion.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareNumber.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number

No. No. No. A square number/perfect square is an INTEGER. It is defined as n^2, where n is an integer and hence n^2 as well. Root 15 is not an integer. Only B from those options fits this criteria. These terms have precise definitions - you can't just impose your own opinion.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareNumber.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_number

his point was not right though.

i am saying all the time that "perfect square " is EQUAL to "square number".

he is saying that it is not.

i provided the evidence that implies he is wrong.

therefore, he is wrong.

QED

his point was not right though.

i am saying all the time that "perfect square " is EQUAL to "square number".

he is saying that it is not.

i provided the evidence that implies he is wrong.

therefore, he is wrong.

QED

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareNumber.html

There you go, my little fella. Literally the first sentence of the page.

"A square number, also called a perfect square, is a .... "

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareNumber.html

There you go, my little fella. Literally the first sentence of the page.

"A square number, also called a perfect square, is a .... "

Also, it seems that you don't know that "square number" is the same as "perfect square".

Can you just google it, please? It is easier to find for yourself that these two terms are completely equal.

Seriously, just type "square number" in the google and find the definition for yourself. You will see that you are wrong.

Also, it seems that you don't know that "square number" is the same as "perfect square".

Can you just google it, please? It is easier to find for yourself that these two terms are completely equal.

Seriously, just type "square number" in the google and find the definition for yourself. You will see that you are wrong.

@D D guy meant rational numbers by saying perfect square lol but his point was right

@D D guy meant rational numbers by saying perfect square lol but his point was right

You didn't understand at all what I am trying to say.

I perfectly know what "square number" is.

I am pointing out that the term "perfect square number" does NOT exist in english language.

Either it's "square number" OR "perfect square". There is no "perfect square number". I am not pointing out at the mathematics when discussing this, I am discussing english vocabulary. You can't just make up terms on your own.

Also, I am a 4th year student in mathematics. The discussion regarding this topic is connected to the number theory, by far the most boring and easiest class I took on my university. I don't need to people to explain to me anything regarding this topic.

You didn't understand at all what I am trying to say.

I perfectly know what "square number" is.

I am pointing out that the term "perfect square number" does NOT exist in english language.

Either it's "square number" OR "perfect square". There is no "perfect square number". I am not pointing out at the mathematics when discussing this, I am discussing english vocabulary. You can't just make up terms on your own.

Also, I am a 4th year student in mathematics. The discussion regarding this topic is connected to the number theory, by far the most boring and easiest class I took on my university. I don't need to people to explain to me anything regarding this topic.

@D D dude you need to go back to school again..

@D D dude you need to go back to school again..

@D D You never paid attention in an math class nor do you have manners, do you? I'll dumb it down for you.

A perfect square is a NUMBER, that is the product of a WHOLE, RATIONAL NUMBER multiplied with itself. This means things like "n*n" where n can be 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., n. To say perfect square or perfect square number is synonymous. They are both numbers.

What OP said was that because ANYTHING can be squared, and perfect square wasn't specified, the original question has THEORETICALLY, as in in theory or hypothetically, an infinite amount of answers. You can square PI, 1.25, the square root of 17, and find your way to the answers listed. 17 is a square, the square of the square root of 17, but it's not a perfect square (or perfect square number, whichever you choose to use) because it is not the product of a WHOLE, RATIONAL number multiplied with itself, but rather it is essentially the product of a decimal multiplied with itself.

Make sense yet?

@D D Keep repeating your incorrect statement.  Eventually, that will make it true?

@D D Keep repeating your incorrect statement.  Eventually, that will make it true?

it seems you need to learn what "square number" means. google it, if it's easier. and the question was properly asked.

it seems you need to learn what "square number" means. google it, if it's easier. and the question was properly asked.

Again, there is no such term as "perfect square number"

There are two terms: "square number" and a "perfect square"

both terms are equal (have the same meaning).

Again, there is no such term as "perfect square number"

There are two terms: "square number" and a "perfect square"

both terms are equal (have the same meaning).

@D D A perfect square is the same thing as a perfect square number. They are products of whole, rational numbers multiplied by themselves. What OP is saying is that technically, any number, including decimals, can have a square and since the question didn't specify that the squares had to have perfect roots (whole, rational values), it could, in theory, be any of those answers.

@D D A perfect square is the same thing as a perfect square number. They are products of whole, rational numbers multiplied by themselves. What OP is saying is that technically, any number, including decimals, can have a square and since the question didn't specify that the squares had to have perfect roots (whole, rational values), it could, in theory, be any of those answers.

There is no such thing as "perfect square number".

There is "a perfect square" which is equal to "square number".

perfect square == square number.

so, the question was pretty clear, and no, no other options are correct besides the B.

There is no such thing as "perfect square number".

There is "a perfect square" which is equal to "square number".

perfect square == square number.

so, the question was pretty clear, and no, no other options are correct besides the B.