Talk:2001 Digits Of Root Two

From Rosetta Code

task title[edit]

How about:
2,001 decimal digits of the square root of 2

2001 reads too much like a year.

Or ... root of two ?

With or without the article   the   if y'all prefer shorter task titles.   -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if we slightly generalize the task we could get a page title that is not so long?
For example, we could parameterize the number of digits (or the number of digits after the decimal - different concept, different kind of generalization). For example, we could parameterize the root (square root, cube root, ...). For example, we could parameterize the value we are taking the root of (2 or 3 or 5 or ...) --Rdm (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea of generalizing the computer program to accept a specific number of decimal digits, and especially what number to be used (it need not be an integer, as long as we're expanding its scope),   or better yet, ··· numbers   to be used.   However, which root to use becomes problematic as most square root functions (and cube root functions, for that matter) use specialized ... (maybe a better word would be optimized)   routines (or code) for square and cube roots, although a generalized program to find any root would not be out of the question.   As long as any root would/could be specified, why not allow negative roots as well?   We're probably talking about another Rosetta Code task now.   -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
But do any of those lend themselves to a nice page title? Or is it time to wait a few days to see if others want to contribute? --Rdm (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, how about:   --- N decimal digits of the Mth root of X ---     oh, wait, that's longer, even if ya drop the word   decimal.   -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

new draft task[edit]

The new draft task is called "Integer roots".

Could have renamed this one[edit]

You could have taken the content of this page and moved it over to the new page title and then left a redirect here (and then updated the new page with the new task description). Probably not a good idea now, but that's how we usually deal with page renames. --Rdm (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not mean to make such a mess of things. Is there some way to clean up my mistake now? Zelah (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)