Talk:Square Root of Sum as Sum of Square Roots

Choosing to equate the parts chosen was arbitrary, the choice simply leads to a nice algebraic manipulation --Ybab321 (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This result is neat, and not seen very often. Good job. --prime mover (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Incidentally I see you're getting in a bit of a knot trying to work out which steps are $\iff$ and which are not ... does it matter that the steps may or may not be reversible? Can't we just stick $\implies$ in front of all the rules? We're only interested in the implications going one way, unless I'm missing something fundamental. If we *do* need the argument to go two ways (I can't see why we would), then best thing would be to craft the opposite direction argument as a separate section. --prime mover (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly confident with my $\iff$s and $\implies$. My minor edits have been consisting of removing them from the very first eqn of each eqn list --Ybab321 (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * But I don't understand why you've got some $\iff$s on some lines and not on others. They're inconsistently applied and not even necessary. Why not put $\implies$ at the front of every line like normal people :-) ?

I've been neglecting to include it when one of the sides of the equation doesn't change. In fact, I shouldn't even be writing the LHS if I'm to conform to my own ideals. Also, thanks for cleaning up the language and presentation --Ybab321 (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay that's basically what the problem is.


 * And sorry but as you haven't justified the use of $\iff$ (you only need it if your proof requires that the argument be reversible) I'm replacing them with $\implies$. --prime mover (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand; that's absolutely fine. I'll try to stay consistent with your approach in future --Ybab321 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)