Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.

Topic: Associated Legendre
Replies: 13   Last Post: Dec 1, 2002 4:33 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Nimish Shah Posts: 93 Registered: 12/3/04
Re:Associated Legendre
Posted: Nov 30, 2002 6:27 AM

On the Thursday 28 Nov 2002 8:15 am, Mehran Basti wrote:
> Okay - I will bite here. In simple layman's terms what is Exact Analysis?
>
> This is my paper created in 1985 about 100 pages.

Okay - given that it is 100 pages, give a list of the landmarks of the
paper, or alternatively,
1. What is the problem that you are addressing?
2. What is the contribution of the paper?

> 2nd Question: How does Exact Analysis compare to Real Analysis (as in the
> structure of the Real Number line which was needed when the algebraic
> proof of Calculus was shown to be false (by Berkley)) which was developed
> by Cauchy.
>
> This has two parts. One is polynomials and another the Riccati equation.
>
> In polynomials the structure begins with solving the quadratic and cubic
> with differential equations although I had shown Bernoulli differential
> equations too.

Okay. Let start of with the simple quadratic equation.

Given (x-2)(x-3) =0 -> x^2-5x+6 =0.
How do you apply your method to turn x^2-5x+6=0 into an algebraic form,
using differential equations, so as to find the roots of the equation?

> In Riccati I have Bessel differential equations and some others using the
> manipulation of higher order differential equations.
>
> So there is a structure there, like real analysis.

Actually, what you might have is a method of solving polynomial equations
using differential equations as oppose to algebraic manipulation. Now the
question that is on my mind (and I would suppose others) would be
1. How does you method work? (YOU WILL OF COURSE BE GIVEN THE CREDIT OF
COMING UP WITH THE IDEA)
2. Can it be generalized?
3. Does it give a novel/different view on current mathematical methods of
solving polynomials.

> step.
>

Well, Okay, I am asking them - and at a level that is simple enough to
straightforward.

Whatever you do - DON'T move the argument to a higher level by either using
fancy language or dismissing the example as trivial.

Nim.

Date Subject Author
11/24/02 M.Basti
11/25/02 M.Basti
11/26/02 Nimish Shah
11/27/02 M.Basti