arithmetic
Posts:
106
From:
venezuela
Registered:
1/23/06
|
|
Re: cube root of a given number
Posted:
Jul 27, 2007 4:34 PM
|
|
On 27 jul, 09:54, "sttscitr...@tesco.net" <sttscitr...@tesco.net>
wrote:
> You GCF stuff is complete rubbish.
You got to this point with nothing more than to insult because you
ignored that one of the most important characteristics of the very
particular sample on GCF
(I say "very particular" because there is an uncountable number of GCF
which differs from that)
shown in the webpage: http://mipagina.cantv.net/arithmetic/gencontfrac.htm
IS THAT SUCH GCF IS JUST A REPRESENTATION OF DANIEL BERNOULLI'S METHOD
FOR ROOT-SOLVING, which at the same time is es PERIODIC CONTINUED-
FRACTION REPRESENTATION of irrational numbers of degree higher than
2. With the particularity that all this concept was TRIVIALLY devised
by agency of the Rational Mean processes.
Your stupidity, envy, cowardice and psychopathic behavior drived you
to fall in such a rat-trap which has been specially settled for
overbearing ignorants like you. So anything you want to tell about
such GCF is automatically applied to Daniel Bernoulli's method.
Now, you want me to explain to you how the Lineal Homogeneous
Recurrence Relations of Daniel Bernoulli's method works with complex
numbers. WRONG, take a book by yourself and learn that method, and
slow down your overbearing ignorance.
I do not bring any cent for the bizarre Trick-&.Patch called:
Imaginary Numbers.
You are far beyond any help, indeed.
On 26 jul, 22:16, "sttscitr...@tesco.net" <sttscitr...@tesco.net>
wrote:
> I wonder if XXXXXXXXX XXXXX still thinks your contribution to
> mathematical knowledge is still quite so fantastic.
For God sake, poor litle envious man. You have finally shown the true
reason for your insanity.
Your problem is just a matter of envy, jealousy, etc.
Well, your stupidity is far beyond any help, indeed.
The main point here is neither about any person named XXXXXXX XXXX,
nor about whoever could find of some interest those methods, nor
about
a me (on the contrary, I did not consider such methods as "my
methods"
even when sometimes for the sake of brevity I am forced to use such
words).
The main point here is about something that you are so far to
understand.
You are far beyond help.
On 26 jul, 22:16, "sttscitr...@tesco.net" <sttscitr...@tesco.net>
wrote:
>...who but a retard would wriite it down for posterity ?
Why don't you meet the people you are cowardly insulting behind your
computer?
http://mipagina.cantv.net/arithmetic
Indeed, I think this guy <sttscitr...@tesco.net> should be
investigated, because if he acts
like a math teacher in any school then we have a serious problem.
You have now decided to insult other people who have kindly devoted
some of their unvaluable time to analyze these new methods and to try
to bring something new from them, and that is something that I cannot
tolerate.
They have published some of their ideas on some of these methods and
I
am sure that most of them do not agree with many critics or comments
from mine (and I do not want them to do so), but they have an open
mind and don't think about themselves as owners of Truth.
Why don't you meet the people you are cowardly insulting behind your
computer?
http://mipagina.cantv.net/arithmetic
Come on show up your name, your signature does not support any single
insult and false statement you have made. Come on, be a man.
You are just an ignorant who does not know that the general Rational
Mean concept trivially leads the way to the well-known Daniel
Bernoulli's method and at the same time allowed to devise these new
GCF (which basically are the well-known Bernoulli's method as stated
in my book and webpage, so it is clear that I could never intend to
say that such GCF produce all the best approximations for any
irrational number).
You are just a litle envious man who ignores the required steps to
apply the well-known Daniel Bernoulli's method to complex roots.
You are clearly unable to recognize that such GCF are basically
Daniel
Bernoulli's method.
You are clearly unable to realize that I don't care about the
importance of such very particular GCF expression shown in my
webpages, because there are many others, and that is not the true
issue of my work. Actually, the GCF expression shown in the webpage:
http://mipagina.cantv.net/arithmetic/gencontfrac.htm
are just a bit sample of an uncountable number of similar single
continued expressions that you can find to express irrational
numbers.
That's why the central idea of all my postings is just about the
new general Rational Mean concept and the new hig-order arithmetical
root-solving algorithms (not about those samples on GCF) that have no
precedents, at all, as your stupidity have finally allow you to
realize.
You are clearly unable to realize that I believe it can be found a
missing mathematics, a true natural mathematics that does not
require,
at all, any BIZARRE Imaginary Number Concept, notice that I say
bizarre even when some people have found practical applications for
them. I think that a true natural science of mathematics should not
be
just a bunch of bizarre tricks and patches whic have been forced to
match some particular needs.
Consequently, you are unable to realize that I do not care about the
bizarre imaginary numbers concept (even when they are widely applied
in engineering).
I think that Imaginary numbers are not part of a true natural science
but just TRICKS AND PATCHES.
I am sure there is a missing mathematics based on Number itself,
which
is not composed neither of just TRICKS-&-PATCHES (like modern
mathematics), nor of TRIAL-&-ERRORS METHODS like those you pretended
to pass as precedents of these new ways.
All that is explained in my webpages and book, of course, your
parrot-
fashion mind and your tendency to insult people who do not inhabit
this newsgroup will not allow you to understand a single bit of all
what I am talking about. That's it.
Ing. Domingo Gomez
Structural Engineer
Caracas
Venezuela
|
|
