On Jul 26, 12:47 pm, "sttscitr...@tesco.net" <sttscitr...@tesco.net> wrote: > On 26 Jul, 17:35, semiopen <former_schiz...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > [everything cut - my head is starting to spin!] > > > Here is an OT quote which, if followed, might help the readability of > > this thread: > > > "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary > > words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that > > a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no > > unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his > > sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects > > only in outline, but that every word tell." > > Sorry, I thought I was being relatively concise under the > circumstances. What don't you understand ? > > The proliferation of arguments is a classic Dumbingo > tactic to cloud the issue.
I was responding to a prolix message from arithmonic in which he failed to make any new points - and attempting to do so diplomatically. Doubtless it is a futile exercise - anyone with an overfondness for capital letters is unlikely to value good writing. Your points have been easy to understand - though I am not in a position to judge the extent to which his methods differ from those already appearing in the literature. Frankly, I don't care very much since I am not exactly pining for methods for extracting roots - a computer algebra system can give me hundreds of digits of precision in small fractions of a second, which is way more than I'll ever need. The topic is probably interesting and could make a good article for say the MAA Monthly, but it is not exactly cutting edge.
