Re: A dead subject

From: Poker Joker (Poker_at_wi.rr.com)
Date: 08/03/04 

Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 02:49:40 GMT

"Laserman" <jimzotos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:57378408.0408021300.123eb5cd@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> No you are incorrect, I have used case 2 to make a formula that is
> designed to lend itself easily for computation, even easier! I have
> made the formula easier, do you understand? All those mathematicians
> for thousands of years solving quadratic equations in all the forms
> you mentioned above and yet not one of them clever enough to see the
> better formula. NOT A ONE. You people do not WANT to see it, as I
> lay it before you plain as day. We are like Gallileo against the
> inquisition where you try to convince me to recant and say my version
> of the facts is not good enough because you refuse to see the light.
> Anybody else except Herman Rubin interested in the derivation?

You are way too clever. Now please wait 75 years before speaking
or writing one more word so that we can absorb this astonishing
information. We are so unworthy.

BTW - how many subtractions are required to transform my standard
equation into one that requires two less subtractions? Please have an
answer ready in 2079, if you can find and count both of them.