Square root day, 3/3/09, is upon us

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Math lovers and numerologists take note: Today, March 3, 2009, is square root day.

The unofficial holiday comes around but nine times a century, when the numbers of the calendar align so that the month and day are each equal to the square root of the year as expressed in two-digit form. (In today's case, 3/3/09, 3 is the square root of 9—in other words, 32 = 3 x 3 = 9.) Square root days arise in every year whose last two digits are a perfect square, or a number whose square root is a whole number: The last square root day was on February 2, 2004 (2/2/04), and the next occurrence will be on April 4, 2016 (4/4/16).

A square root day group on Facebook, boasting more than 2,400 members, suggests celebrating the minor mathematical oddity by eating radishes or other roots—cut into spot-on squares, of course.

Because of the nature of perfect squares, the wait time between square root days increases by two years each time as the century unfolds—five years separated the previous square root day from today's, seven years will pass before the next square root day in 2016, and nine years will elapse before the following one in 2025. But after the final square root of this century, September 9, 2081 (9/9/81), there will be a slightly prolonged layover before the 22nd century starts its own run of square root days on January 1, 2101 (1/1/01).

UPDATES (6:30 P.M.): Commenter tubegeek points out that today could just as easily be called "square day"—and, by the same token, "square root day" could be applied to 9/3/03 and 4/2/02 rather than 3/3/09 and 2/2/04. It's all a question of semantics: the originators of square root day apparently preferred the "3 is the square root of 9" (3/3/09) interpretation to the alternate but equally valid "the square root of 9 is 3" (9/3/03) interpretation.

firesignth on Twitternotes that this month boasts another notable math date, 3/14, known as pi day. Even better, he points out, is pi second, which falls at 1:59:26 on that date, bringing one numerical representation of the date and time, 3.1415926, into line with pi, out to seven decimal places. firesignth also goes so far as to note that March 16 at 2:27 (which, by the pi second notation, becomes 3.16227) in the year 2010 is very nearly a square root time, because the square root of 10 is 3.16227...


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Image: © iStockphoto/Daft_Lion_Studio

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe