# Talk:Shifting nth root algorithm

## Contents

## Useless?

so it follows that this algorithm is completely useless, as it is always outperformed by much simpler binary search, and has the same memory complexity.

Yet it is even mentioned in some dictionaries... could it be that the pencil and paper time complexity is different, compared to a binary search? 82.139.85.33 20:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It can be faster on pencil and paper than binary search because it goes one digit at a time, so the size of the numbers involved is smaller, so it's easier for limited human short-term memory. -Andrea Persephone 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

- Also, there are some problematic assumptions. In computers small products and additions have more like O(1) computation time thanks to them being implemented with optimized HW rather than a digit/bit at a time. (And very large products are better than as well). --Jake 18:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

## Fourth root of seven

the first line of the sum shouldn't it be 600 not 400 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japhes5005 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

## Error in Paper-And-Pencil Calculation Example?

In the section titled "Paper-and-pencil nth roots", on the right side of the calculation area, the third row looks like this:

3(10×14)^2×4 + 3(10×14)×4^2 + 4^3

While the fourth row looks like this:

3(10×144^2)×2 + 3(10×144)×2^2 + 2^3

Note that the exponent in the left-hand term of the third row (as well as the first and second rows) is outside the parentheses, while on the fourth row (and fifth and sixth), it's inside the parent instead.

Is this an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougdigdag (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

## Balanced ternary

Could anyone show example of finding square root of 2 in balanced ternary? Preferably, with some comments, i can't figure it out, neither find any related info.. xakepp35 02:42, 08 April 2016 (UTC)