So, you will need to go a little further with explanations of why but the way to go about this one is:

$ \lfloor \sqrt{1000} \rfloor + \lfloor \sqrt[3]{1000} \rfloor - \lfloor \sqrt[6]{1000} \rfloor $

To see why this is correct, draw a Venn Diagram, and take out the common terms.


I didn't think of the 6th root approach, so i just when through and counted the cubes (since there would only be 10) and I found that only 1 and 64 are both squares and cubes.


You missed one. 729 is both a square and a cube. I believe the correct equation would be;

$ \lfloor \sqrt{1000} \rfloor + \lfloor \sqrt[3]{1000} \rfloor - \lfloor \sqrt[5]{1000} \rfloor $

This yields the same answer, but I believe the intersection is the set $ x^2*x^3=x^5 $ meaning you would need the 5th root, not the sixth.

--Jberlako 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been playing around with this one, and the original equation is right, but I can't figure out why. Can you explain why it is the 6th root rather than the 5th?

--Jberlako 22:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


I guess I don't get why you say the original equation is correct, I thought the second one looked right.

--Rhollowe 00:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you increase the problem to numbers less than 5000, you include one more integer that is a square and cube, namely 4096.

$ \sqrt[5]{5000}=5.49 $

$ \sqrt[6]{5000}=4.13 $

This shows that the sixth root is correct. I think I understand what is going on here now. If you have a number that has both a square and cube root it must be the result of the cube of a square or the square of a cube. Look at the 4 numbers we have in the intersection of the sets for this problem

$ 1=(1^2)^3 $

$ 64=4^3=8^2 $ where $ 4=2^2 $ and $ 8=2^3 $ meaning $ 64=(2^2)^3 $

$ 729=27^2=9^3 $ where $ 27=3^3 $ and $ 9=3^2 $ meaning $ 729=(3^2)^3 $

$ 4096=16^3=64^2 $ where $ 16=4^2 $ and $ 64=4^3 $ meaning $ 4096=(4^2)^3 $

As we all know, $ (x^a)^b=x^{b*a} $ which in our case gives us $ x^6 $.

--Jberlako 11:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Alumni Liaison

Abstract algebra continues the conceptual developments of linear algebra, on an even grander scale.

Dr. Paul Garrett