Re: A dead subject
From: Laserman (jimzotos_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/03/04
- Next message: David W. Cantrell: "Re: anyone have any sort of map of mathematics?"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: support of a finite borel measure"
- In reply to: Poker Joker: "Re: A dead subject"
- Next in thread: Poker Joker: "Re: A dead subject"
- Reply: Poker Joker: "Re: A dead subject"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 3 Aug 2004 06:46:48 -0700
"Poker Joker" <Poker@wi.rr.com> wrote in message news:<83DPc.8449$ju6.899@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> "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.
Your replies only show how misinformed you really are. I think that
you are the one who has difficulty counting. What you call "my
standard equation" is standard only because you say it is (you and
millions of people like you who have no particular reason to call it
"standard" they just learned to call it that). There is absolutely no
mathematical reason for ax^2 + bx + c = 0 to be considered the
standard form. No reason except people say it is so without having
completely thought out all the possible ramifications of the
situation. As for the MYTH that you have to set the equation equal to
zero in order to find the roots, I think that I have showed very
nicely that it is just that, a MYTH. I will explain further so that I
am sure you understand. Random second degree equations come in all
varieties. Some are already set equal to zero and MOST are not. Some
are set equal to ax^2, some equal to bx + c some have all coeficients
negative there is no reason why any particular form should be favored
over another...well you get the idea, so your "observation" that first
I have to set the equation to your standard form and then perform 2
subtractions to put it into my form is preposterous. Let me assure
you that given a random second degree equation I will put it into my
form, identify a,b,and c as I see fit and then substitute the
coefficients into my version of the formula and I will probably get
the answer faster than you. Let me point out again that you will use
extra ink or extra chalk when you set the equation to (pesky) zero
whereas I set the equation to ax^2 WHITHOUT USING THE SYMBOL FOR ZERO.
Think of the BILLIONS of tiny little particles of chalk dust that I
save while you carelessly and aimlessly strut around your extra
symbols and profess to be the gaurdian of some universal secret that
you are worthy to understand. Why is it so important to you to
preserve the status quo?. You got to think like a rebel pal...It
seems to me that you are willing to go to any length so that you can
reject my new interpretation, perhaps you are a little jealous? This
idea is the kind that makes one say "Why the hell didn't I think of
that?"( you should thank me for I have found an application where the
symbol for zero actually hinders our search for the solution). I
think it is about time that mathematicians stop worshipping zero.
- Next message: David W. Cantrell: "Re: anyone have any sort of map of mathematics?"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: support of a finite borel measure"
- In reply to: Poker Joker: "Re: A dead subject"
- Next in thread: Poker Joker: "Re: A dead subject"
- Reply: Poker Joker: "Re: A dead subject"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
