Re: A dead subject

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

Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 22:38:02 GMT

"Laserman" <jimzotos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:57378408.0408030546.31bbd012@posting.google.com...
> "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.

LaserMoron,

Your equation is non-standard because 99.99% of the experts say so.
They can call whatever they agree upon to be standard. That's how
standards are created. Someday after 3rd grade you'll understand
this point, but for now, keep up the good effort. I'll give you an 'S'
for satisfactory work. That shouldn't hurt your young ego like a
D- might.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: kids and their furniture?
    ... I would always honor and respect any house rules I was ... standards that differed significantly from the range of behaviors ... I think it's pretty close to the legal 'reasonable person' standard. ... too much work to reason one's way through every single ...
    (misc.kids)
  • Re: I dont get how the computer arrives at 2^31
    ... > Standard isn't always as careful with the language it uses. ... something that will make its functionality "equivalent" to fprintf(). ... function that created the va_list value passed to vfprintf(). ... The reason is that, unless ...
    (comp.std.c)
  • Re: How do you imagine future Common Lisp standard ?
    ... Scheme doesn't focus on good macro ... Goodness and Badness must be evaluated in a particular design-space ... It's fortunate that this can be done without change to the standard, ... There's no reason to define the old language away, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Understanding # and function variables
    ... That's the reason for my statement that I don't care whether a ... >>change is standard compliant or not. ... >>substantial revision of ANSI Common Lisp and would provide equally ... I will find out about an already existing language that is strictly ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: the media doesnt take christianity seriously
    ... >>the government imprison anyone or release anyone they wish for any reason ... >>Why do you believe no absolute standard of morality exists? ... > Our need to survive living with each other. ... That's just the opinion ...
    (rec.arts.tv)