>>No, I'm sure we tried that right after we couldn't find the SQRT() function, and it either didn't work, or else there was no power operator at all :) BTW, was my solution the only one that didn't also rely on a power operator?
>
>You missed mine then.

Oh, sorry. I was being a little facetious, though, they mostly just used ^2, which is just x times itself, so that's not cheating :)

>Mine is the "you know the range the value has to fall in so divide the range in two until you get it" type of solution. Though Newton did it better than me.

So, how many iterations does yours take to get SQRT(2) accurate to 15 digits? :) Newton's only took about 8 or 9, I think.

Taylor's may be less, but it's a real PITA to compute all those root derivatives < s > Newton stands tallest on this computation, and for over 300 years, too...