Re: Root Finder 12
From: Jon G. (jon8338_at_peoplepc.com)
Date: 11/27/04
- Next message: Reinhard: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: dan michaels: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- In reply to: C. Bond: "Re: Root Finder 12"
- Next in thread: Proginoskes: "Re: Root Finder 12"
- Reply: Proginoskes: "Re: Root Finder 12"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:38:32 GMT
You people are savage, and there's no call for it. I suppose
you are one of the anal perfectionist obsessed with keeping on
course down to the Angstrom to offset the Gudermanian.
Newton's Method is an invention of genius. Why not use it?
Newton just didn't come up with the approximations to plug into
it...
or did he?
C. Bond wrote:
> Jon G. wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I thought you already posted the last word on this subject. Are you
> suffering from some kind of attention deficit disorder, or are you
> being deliberately misleading? If there's a third possibility, I'd
> welcome your explanation.
>
> --
> There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable
> -- and the obvious.
> --
> Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
> --
> http://www.crbond.com
>
>
- Next message: Reinhard: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: dan michaels: "Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation"
- In reply to: C. Bond: "Re: Root Finder 12"
- Next in thread: Proginoskes: "Re: Root Finder 12"
- Reply: Proginoskes: "Re: Root Finder 12"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|