On 26 jul, 16:19, semiopen <former_schiz...@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Ocultar texto de la cita - > > - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Another anonymous, I think that anonymous are proliferating in this thread, I wonder why. What a fun.
>I was responding to a prolix message from arithmonic in which he > failed to make any new points
YOU ARE WRONG, I DIDN'T FAILED, I AM NOT INTERESTED IN RISING ANY OTHER NEW POINT FOR SUCH AN ANONYMOUS PSYCHOPATH like this: sttscitr...@tesco.net. So I am only replying him by copying and pasting with just some additional words in each new posting.
You also said: "I don't care very much since I am not exactly ...."
THEN, IF YOU DO NOT CARE: What are you doing here? Go elsewhere, find a girl, drive a car, whatever you could ever really care.
> The topic is probably interesting and could make a good article for > say the MAA Monthly, but it is not exactly cutting edge.
All these new methods are not looking for any favor neither from intitutions nor from any journal in exchange for not including my critics on the whole history of root-solving. My critics will always be along with these methods, and that will make nothing good for any peer-review journal. I will not send these methods to any re-known peer-review journal.
Math-historians have a MORAL OBLIGATION: TO INCLUDE THESE METHODS IN THEIR PAPERS. If they are not willing to do that, I don't care. The transcendence of these methods do not depend on neither any journals, nor normal persons, nor myself, nor on any anonymous postings. These methods will inebitably find their way all through young minds -- not among anonymous parrot-fashion psychopathic cowards, of course--.
> 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.
Well, let us wish you a life FULL OF JOY to you and your software, and your ANONYMOUS BEHAVIOR which is something far WORSE than any typo or philological error that someone could ever commit. Just, two cents to you. Few people feel some respect for ANONYMOUS POSTINGS. SO SORRY, IF YOU DON'T LIKE CAPITAL LETTERS.
ing. Domingo Gomez Morin Structural Engineer Caracas venezuela