Finding the Square of a Number
Squares of small numbers like 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... etc. are easy to find. But can we find the square of 23 so quickly?
The answer is not so easy and we may need to multiply 23 by 23.
There is a way to find this without having to multiply 23 × 23.
We know
23 = 20 + 3
Therefore
=
=
Example 1: Find the square of the following numbers without actual multiplication.
(i)
=
=
(ii)
=
=
Other patterns in squares
Consider the following pattern:
Consider a number with unit digit 5, i.e.,
=
=
=
=
Try these
Find the squares of the following numbers containing 5 in unit’s place:
(i) 15
(ii) 95
(iii) 105
(iv) 205
Pythagorean triplets
Consider the following
=
The collection of numbers 3, 4 and 5 is known as Pythagorean triplet.
We also have
=
making 6, 8 and 10 another example of such triplet.
Similarly,
=
The numbers 5, 12, 13 form another such triplet.
For any natural number m > 1, we have:
So, 2m,
Example 2: Now, write a Pythagorean triplet whose smallest member is 8 using the above general form
- Say,
– 1 = 8m 2 - Upon solving we get, m =
- Thus,
+ 1 =m 2 and 2m = - This gives us the Pythagorean triplet of 6,8,10. However, as it turns out 8 isn't the smallest member. So, let's try another assumption.
- Let's take 2m = 8
- Which gives m =
- Thus,
+ 1 =m 2 and - 1 =m 2 - We have found the pythagoras triplet of 8,15 and 17 with 8 as the smallest member.
Example 3: Find a Pythagorean triplet in which one member is 12
- Say,
– 1 = 12m 2 - Upon solving we find that: m isn't an integer. Let's try another assumption.
- If we try
+ 1 = 12, we getm 2 = 11 which further gives a non-integer value for mm 2 - Thus, we can only take 2m =
which gives m = . - Thus,
+ 1 =m 2 and - 1 =m 2 - We have found the pythagoras triplet of 12,35 and 37.
This shows that our assumption when trying to find a suitable value of 'm' is important.
Note: All Pythagorean triplets may not be obtained using this form. For example: another triplet 5, 12, 13 also has 12 as a member.