Talk:Square number

message: Both these articles represent the same function, so I see no reason why they shouldn't be merged. I also wish for Cube (algebra) to moved to Cube number so we have something that can fit in Category:Figurate numbers that can coincide with other polyhedral numbers such as Tetrahedral numbers and Centered cube numbers. The idea of having two articles for square numbers and yet one for cubes seems odd to me. Robo37 (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with a merge: as it stands Square (algebra) is mostly about perfect squares anyway. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Square (algebra)]] 

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned that the sum of the digits of a square number must be 1, 4, 7 or 9? I don't know the exact term in English, but this is the same as saying that the rest if one divides by nine must be 0, 1, 4, 7. I don't have any proof of this property though.
Vittorio Mariani (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned at Digital root#Some properties of digital roots. I'm not sure it is worth mentioning in Square number. It follows from modular arithmetic that the property only has to be checked for 0^2 to 8^2. Suppose you write an arbitrary integer as (9n+k) where 0≤k<9. (9n+k)^2 = (9n)^2+18nk+k^2. Divided by 9 it must give the same remainder as k^2 divided by 9, because 9 divides (9n)^2+18nk. Similar rules for possible values of the remainder when a square is divided by any other integer d can be given. Just list the remainder when dividing 0^2 to (d-1)^2 by d (actually you can limit it to 0^2 to floor(d/2)^2 for symmetry reasons). PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Maybe just mentioning wouldn't do bad, I won't insist anyway :) --Vittorio Mariani (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sum of digits 

message: when you are using squares here is an easy patters.
1x1=1
(+3)
2x2=4
(+5)
3x3=9
(+7)
4x4=16
As you should see by now each time the factor goes up the solution goes up by an odd number.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froogle1099 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pattern In squares 

message: This article informs us that
: 
:: An easy way to find square numbers is to find two numbers which have a mean of it, 212:20 and 22, and then multiply the two numbers together and add the square of the distance from the mean: 22 × 20 = 440 and  440 + 12 = 441.
: 
That could bear translation into English. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what it means is that to manually calculate n^2, it is sometimes easier to calculate (n+b)(n-b) + b^2 for some b.  For example, if one would like to square 39, it is easier to calculate 38·40+1 = 1521 than to multiply 39·39 directly.  —Dominus (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I deleted it from the article, but I will not be offended if you think it is worth putting back.  —Dominus (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh??? 

message: Added the Hexadecimal section to Properties chapter. Contains factorization without any division! May be interesting for young math geeks. Please correct me if some place is unclear.  Neeme Vaino (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hexadecimal section 

message: [] 24 hours to demonstrate the relevance of integer square numbers to "the real number system" and statistics. Otherwise, I will henceforth reduce such edits of , possibly with my [rollback] link. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, it's a fake link here. I'm not a moron to put my own privilege to a publicly readable page ☺The accusation that I "fight against the rules" requires evidences. There was no deception, only a part of statement was missing before the semicolon character. Note that I would not have such a grievance about user:Joel B. Lewis‎ were the merger procedurally accurate. Probably, I fight against opinions of 4 users (although Joel B. Lewis‎ virtually renounced his position, and Physics is all gnomes commented only what [contemporarily] "stands Square (algebra) is mostly about"), but opinions of 4 users are not the rules of Wikipedia, anyway. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Uses" section 

message: Well, yet another problem. Let us compare the article's formatting:
Before Incnis Mrsi and after Anita5192	Before Incnis Mrsi and after Anita5192	After Incnis Mrsi               	After Incnis Mrsi	Comments
code                                                 	rendered                                             	code                            	rendered         	Comments
√9 = 3                             	√9 = 3                                     	 = 3	 = 3   	No vinculum before Incnis Mrsi
m = 12 = 1                                	m = 12 = 1                                           	 = 12 = 1  	= 12 = 1         	become italicized, like in a text run. Reverted by Anita5192
(n − 1)-th               	(n − 1)-th                           	-th             	-th              	
# NBSPs look exaggeratedly wide, thin spaces look fine
# Anita5192's variant is obfuscated
in base 10                                           	in base 10                                           	in base 10                  	in base 10       	Relevant internal link removed by Anita5192
if k² − m                                  	if k² − m                                      	if    	if               	
# Wikipedia:MOSMATH#Superscripts and subscripts explicitly forbids the use of "²" except in limited circumstances
# Anita5192's variant can word wrap
k ≥ √m                                               	k ≥ √m                                               		                 	
# No vinculum
# Can word wrap
pp. 30-32                                            	pp. 30-32                                            	pp. 30–32              	pp. 30–32   	
# Improper use of hyphen-minus; see WP:–
# Can word wrap
How exactly are aforementioned Anita5192's codes better than mine? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As said, the ordinary markup is cleaner than . It is not possible to copy and paste the text into another edit window (if needed) using the templates, using the ordinary markup makes that easy. Maschen (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  As said by whom? I do not understand completely what do you speaking about. If you want to copy and paste between edit forms, then there is no difference between "the ordinary markup" and template formatting, and you certainly have to realize this. Assuming you speak about copying from a rendered page (i.e., a web page in the browser) to an edit form, which is another possibility, please, demonstrate how is it possible to easily copy and paste the ordinary markup such as m = 12 = 1 or (n − 1)-th to an edit form. Do you assert that by copying from this zoomed text on a web page will you obtain a workable wiki code, with superscripts and italics? Maybe, you could even demonstrate this? In which browser? In any way, this consideration have little to do with concrete, pronounced shortcomings which I listed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: Example: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 4 ^ 2 = 16
4 is in the center of sum, and 16 is the 4th perfect square.
Is it reasonable to add this to the article?
Azurean72 (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not for your own original research. Each addition must be supported by published sources that establish the notability of the result. D.Lazard (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

text: It's quite a trivial result, as splitting the sum gives (in this case) four columns each totalling 41 + 2 + 3 + 4 +3 + 2 + 1so it doesn't seem worth including, even if any reliable source has bothered to provide such a simple and obvious proof. Certes (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way to represent the nth perfect square 

message: I came here looking for (obviously historical) info on why they are called perfect. jae (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''perfect''' square