On 17 jul, 04:38, "sttscitr...@tesco.net" <sttscitr...@tesco.net> wrote: > On 16 Jul, 23:24, gwh <ghug...@cei.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 14, 10:30 pm, arithmeticae <djes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe not in "any text on numbers", but back in 1945 I purchased a > > copy of "Handbook of Engineering Fundamentals", by Eshbach, and the > > cube root extraction scheme described there was precisely the same as > > the scheme described on one of the links given on the above website. I > > used that method lots of times in my engineering career when I needed > > more precision than my trusty log-log duplex decitrig slide rule was > > able to give me. > > Yes, you can find interesting > pre-computer techniques in > old maths books - even the" texts on > numbers". Was there a reference to > to the originator of the method ?
You can find TRIAL-&-ERROR methods based basically on Geometry, but you will never find SIMPLE AND NATURAL ARITHMETICAL METHODS based only on number itself as those shown in my webpages, and that is a HUGE difference.
Moreover, those old TRIAL-&-ERROR methods you mentioned worked properly for square roots, however, when dealing with higher roots all of them were just PRECOMPUTING NIGHTMARES.
For not to mention that my methods hold high convergence speed (as desired), which is something that you cannot say about all those PRECOMPUTING NIGHTMARES you mentioned.
Indeed, I think you really don't know what you are talking about, for sure.
The issue on those old and well-known root-solving methods is fully explained in my webpages, and many comparisons are shown in my book and webpage.
That's the reason my posting was entitled "DEDICATED TO YOUNG MATH STUDENTS". Some people is not willing even to read any single bit of some new stuff, they just care about themselves. Fortunatedly youngs are another very different thing.
When I mention the word "Young" I am not referring to the word "AGE", I am just referring to "Mental State"