arithmetic
Posts:
106
From:
venezuela
Registered:
1/23/06


Re: cube root of a given number
Posted:
Aug 6, 2007 10:05 AM


On 26 jul, 12:24, "sttscitr...@tesco.net" <sttscitr...@tesco.net> wrote: > On 26 Jul, 14:29, arithmonic <djes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 26 jul, 04:37, "sttscitr...@tesco.net" <sttscitr...@tesco.net> > > wrote: > > [cut sick and cowardly behavior hiding his name] > > You are truly a lamentable fool and liar. > > You claim in the posting that I cite that > the rational mean is the basis for all continued fractions > and generalized continued fractions. > > Generalized continued fractions should exhibit > the same properties as simple continued fractions. > SCFs produce best rational approximations, > generalized continued fractions should produce best > simultaneous approximations. > If the rational mean can produce generalized > continued fractions, it should produce all > best simultaneous rational approximations. > If it can do this it can then solve the cubic Pell, > whose solutions are best rational simultaneous > approximations to cubrt(k*k), cubrt(k). > > You are a complete idiot who does not have the > slighest idea of the implications of what you write.
All the readers can find information on this topic on GCF at (page 34, Section 1.1.1):
http://assets.cambridge.org/052181/8052/sample/0521818052ws.pdf
Anyone can see that 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.
You need to lie as well as to insult and attack me just because you are absolutely unable to find any precedent on the EXTREMELY SIMPLE HIGHORDER ARITHMETICAL METHODS shown in my webpages. You failed in your attempts of causing confusion, and of course, the very reason for your attacks is that you hate so much to see a South American telling you that: "It is a real shame that such extremely trivial HIGHORDER ARTIHMETICAL METHODS (which embraces Halley's, Newton's, householder's methods) do not appear in any book on numbers since Babylonian times up to now.
However, you have no choice but to swallow it. Eat it and digest it.
Why did you stop your insults against all people who have wrote something about my methods?
Swallow this: http://assets.cambridge.org/052181/8052/sample/0521818052ws.pdf
Come on, continue by insulting the author of such book (and other related people).
Come on, persistent offender.

