Question 12
Can we find closer bounds for ?

We can find closer bounds for by testing decimal numbers whose squares are close to 2.
Step 1 — Find integer bounds
First, let us find two whole numbers. Their squares should be on either side of 2. We know that is 1. And is 4. So, is between 1 and 2.

Step 2 — Find bounds with one decimal place
Now, let us find bounds with one decimal place. We will test numbers between 1 and 2. We square these numbers to see if they are close to 2.
Since (which is less than 2) and (which is greater than 2), we know that is between 1.4 and 1.5.
Step 3 — Find bounds with two decimal places
Next, we find bounds with two decimal places. We test numbers between 1.4 and 1.5. We square these numbers to get closer to 2.
Since (less than 2) and (greater than 2), we know that is between 1.41 and 1.42.
Answer
Yes, we can find closer bounds for . For example, we found that .
More questions in IT
How can one construct a square having double the area of a given square?
Why does the new dotted square have double the area of the original square?
In many of the constructions in the Śulba-Sūtra, it is desirable to construct, where needed, what Baudhāyana calls ‘east-west’ and ‘north-south’ lines, i.e., horizontal and vertical lines that are perpendicular to each other. Can you draw some horizontal and vertical lines to see why the new square has double the area of the original square? You could draw some horizontal and vertical lines as shown on the right.
Why should the extension of the vertical and horizontal sides of the original square pass through the vertices of the dotted square?
[Hint: From the diagonal property of a square, the line that bisects an angle passes through the opposite vertex. Argue why the vertical and horizontal sides of the original square bisect the two angles of the dotted square.**]
Context: So, the new square has double the area of the original square, because the original square is made up of two small triangles, while the new square is made up of four small triangles.
Q. Moreover, all these small triangles are congruent to each other. Can you explain why?
Now suppose we are given a square, and we want to construct a square whose area is half that of the original square. How would you do it?
Why is the smaller inside square half the area of the larger square?
Again, adding some east-west and north-south lines can explain it:
Why is PQRS a square? Why is its area half that of the original paper?
Explain by connecting QS and PR, finding the different angles formed, and then using tringle congruence.
Find the hypotenuse of this isosceles right triangle.
What is the value of ?
Is less than or greater than 1?
Is less than or greater than 2?
Can we find closer bounds for ?
Will we ever get a number with a terminating decimal representation whose square is 2?
If there is such a terminating decimal starting with 1.414... whose square is 2, then it must have a non-zero last digit. If this is the case, then the decimal representation of its square will also have a non-zero last digit after the decimal point. For example, if is of the form 1.414...4, then its square will be of the form—
Use this formula to check your answers in the Figure it Out on page 39.
What if we wish to combine two squares of 'different' sizes to make a large square whose area is the sum of the two smaller squares?
Why does Baudhāyana’s method work?
Can you see why the method works in the case where the two squares are the same size? Does it agree with the method we used earlier to combine two same sized squares into a bigger square?
Explain why all the angles of this new 4-sided figure are right angles and so it is a square.
List down all the Baudhāyana triples with numbers less than or equal to 20.
Is there an unending sequence of Baudhāyana triples?
Is (30, 40, 50) a Baudhāyana triple?
Is (300, 400, 500) a Baudhāyana triple?
Context: The list of Baudhāyana triples having numbers less than or equal to 20 contains the following triples — (3, 4, 5), (6, 8, 10), (9, 12, 15), (12, 16, 20).
Q. Do you see any pattern among them?
Context: All these triples can be obtained by multiplying each term of (3, 4, 5) by a certain positive integer.
Q. Can we form a conjecture on Baudhāyana triples based on this observation?
Context: Conjecture: (3k, 4k, 5k) is a Baudhāyana triple, where k is any positive integer.
Q. Is this true?
Is a primitive Baudhayana triple? What are the other primitive Baudhayana triples with numbers less than or equal to 20?
Generate 5 scaled versions of each of these primitive triples. Are these scaled versions primitive?
If is non-primitive, and the integers have — greater than 1 — as a common factor, then is a Baudhayana triple? Check this statement for . Justify this statement.