|
|
Re: cube root of a given number
Posted:
Aug 5, 2007 1:06 PM
|
|
On 28 jul, 09:48, "sttscitr...@tesco.net" <sttscitr...@tesco.net>
wrote:
[CUT more on his nonsense attacks ad-hominen because he is absolutely
unable to find any precedent on the methods shown in my webpages]
SUMMARY:
--------------------------------------------------------
***************************************************
1.- You failed to present any precedents on the new simple methods
based on the Rational Mean:
http://mipagina.cantv.net/arithmetic/rmdef.htm
Which is the very essence of my first posting, so they were forced to
try to rise many other issues and false statments to hide their
incapacity and rash comments on this matter.
***************************************************
2.- You failed in trying to divert the issue on root-
solving to the issue on philology and gramatical use of the phrase :
"GENERALIZED CONTINUED FRACTION".
The phrase: "GENERALIZED CONTINUED FRACTION" does not stand
exclusively for
those continued expressions who yield simultaneous Diophantine
approximations (general pell's equation)
as you falsely alleged, that's another false statement from yours.
That's another lie from yours.
All the readers can find full info on this topic on GCF at (page 3-4,
Section 1.1.1):
http://assets.cambridge.org/052181/8052/sample/0521818052ws.pdf
>From there, you can see that you have no idea on what the phrase GCF
really means,
you have just unsuccessfully tried to cause confusion and attack me ad-
hominen.
You also didn't know that one of the most important characteristics of
the very
particular sample on GCF shown in the webpage:
http://mipagina.cantv.net/arithmetic/gencontfrac.htm
IS THAT SUCH GCF IS JUST A GENERALIZED 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.
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.
Your stupidity and envy drived you to fall in such a continued-rat-
trap which has been specially settled for
overbearing ignorants like you.
***************************************************
3.- You failed to present any posting from mine stating: "My methods
always yield ALL THE BEST APPROXIMATIONS". They were challenged to do
that but failed.
***************************************************
4.- You failed your attempts to discredit the new extremely simple
high-
order arithmetical algorithms by arguing that they do not produce
best
approximations (which is of course another lie from yours that anyone
can
confirm by reading my wepages).
Of course,I have never said in any posting from mine nor in my webpage
and book that these new methods "ALWAYS produce ALL the best
approximants",
that's another lie from yours. You are just a liar trying to cause
confusion.
Notwithstanding, the issue on Best-Approximations is by no means a
requisite for classifying these new methods as true root-solving
algorithms.
Any true root-solving algorithm only need to converge towards the root-
value according to the standard convergence criteria.
Your only intention is to create confusion. What really matters here
is not about if you are an ignorant
but about your unethical behavior and your attacks not only against me
but
against people who do not inhabit this list (http://mipagina.cantv.net/
arithmetic).
I think you should be investigated, indeed, because if you are
teaching mathematics at some school
(I really don't think so but it might be) then educational authorities
should take care about your unethical behavior.
***************************************************
5.- You have not only failed all your attempts but, at the same time,
showed a shameful unethical and
psychopathic behavior and huge cheeks.
***************************************************
END OF SUMMARY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES ON YOUR ATTACKS AD-HOMINEN AND YOUR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR:
Notice that I have spent some time in explaining some points here just
because of all those young people
who inhabit this newsgroup, indeed, I think you are far beyond any
help, indeed. I even feel pity for you and
your friend, as well as I did for some few others in the past.
You have failed again. Your attacks ad-hominen have been demoslished
by the new GENERAL RATIONAL MEAN CONCEPT.
Now, you have to face your unethical behavior.
You have accused me of having no idea about the meaning of the phrase
GCF, you have assaulted
me in so many ways and called me "liar" without signing any single
insulting posting from yours.
It is clear that You have entered to this thread with the only
intention of creating confusion and attacking me by many ways,
just because you are incapable of showing to the sci.math audience any
single precedent on the new hig-order arithmetical algorithms
shown in my webpages. Now, your cowardly behavior starts to face the
consequences of your nonsense attacks against me.
You should cogitate on the fact that neither you nor your friends WILL
BE ABLE TO STOP THESE NEW SIMPLE METHODS.
You will not be able to prevent people from reading them. Neither you
nor any of your friends will be able to stop this.
These new methods and their scope are far beyond any unsuccessful
attacks and insults from yours. They are far beyond you
and your friends or anyone else.
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. You have finally shown the true reason for your
insanity.
Your problem is just a matter of envy, jealousy, etc.
Well, you are 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
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
I am sure you have no courage to continue all your insane insults --
face to face-- against me and
all those people who have wrote something about my methods. You have
no courage to put your signature
and name along with all your insane insults. You have no courage
because your only intention is to try to cause
confusion about the methods shown in my webpages, just because you are
unable to show any sinple precedent on them,
since Babylonian times up to now.
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
Based on the above considerations, I face and maintain what follows
and will always do:
******** DEDICATED TO ALL YOUNG MATH STUDENTS ******************
It is just disturbing to realize these so simple arithmetical methods
DO NOT APPEAR in any book on numbers since ancient times up to now:
http://mipagina.cantv.net/arithmetic/rmdef.htm
References and links can be found at:
http://mipagina.cantv.net/arithmetic
THESE SO SIMPLE METHODS DO NOT APPEAR IN NEITHER ANY CHINESE, NOR
ARAB, NOR INDIAN, NOR WESTERN BOOK, since ancient Babylonian times UP
TO NOW!!!
AND YOU WILL REALIZE THAT NO MATHEMATICIAN nor any math-historian
will
be able to deny such a crude fact.
Whatever...
There are very good news here, specially, for young people because
from now on, by means of simple arithmetic they will be able to learn
at secondary school --by means of the most simple arithmetic-- many
new simple higher-order algorithms, as well as all those well-known
cartesian-infinitesimal algorithms (i.e.: Halley's, Newton's,
Bernoulli's and Householder's) which have been considered as superb
achievements of the history of mathematics, however, one can see now
that all those "superb" achievements can be easily developed by means
of the most simple arithmetic.
Young student, be sure there is something very wrong with the whole
Cartesian-Infinitesimal scheme we have inherited.
Yours is the chance to find new ways on mathematics.
Ing. Domingo Gomez Morin
Structural Engineer
Caracas Venezuela
|
|
