this is 15 and 17, not 15 and 18. Who can tell me why?

>>8629376
because you're retarded.

>>8629376
It's between 15 and 16.

>>8629405
no it's 15 and 17

it's between 15 and 16 because
[math]3 \sqrt{26}= \sqrt{234}[/math] and
[math]15= \sqrt{225}< \sqrt{234}< \sqrt{256}=16[/math]
EZ-PZ

>>8629376
15 and 15.3
because 5.1^2=26.01
so 3√26<3*5.1=15.3 and 3√26>3√25=15

>>8629376
Being between 15 and 17, 15 and 18 or even 0 and 100, all are equally correct. Saying it's between 17 and 18 would be wrong, but not 15 and 18
>>8629405
>>8629446
Are also correct. What changes is accuracy

>>8629376
Why not both?

>>8629478
Less inaccurate at best. None of them are accurate.

"The" answer is moot because it never occurs in Reality, which might be why we cannot calculate most roots.

>>8629847
For every root you can't calculate I will name you one that can be calculated

>>8629430
This tbqh brainlets.

>>8629376
?

its obviously between 0 and 30, why struggle with 15s and 17s if they dont ask for it?

>>8629847
If you're gonna be pedantic, I'll be too. I never said >>8629446 is the most accurate, just that the accuracy is the variable.
>>8629880
As we move further away from 0, the gaps between the square numbers hold more and more non-square integers