Quadrilateral problem

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by davieddy

I say no more.

I think you misunderstood my question of 'Any comments' ?

I meant on the Minkowskian spacetime equation and not a criticism of honest statements as I am out of touch with the cubics and bi-quads. for quite a while now. Four decades ago The 'Vietian' equations were old hat for me, but no longer. Still I did not expect a grunt from you.

However we can still be friends even though we dont see eye to eye, or equation for eqn.

Let bygones be bygones if I have offended you in any way.

Mally

[philmoore]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

FYI I skipped your post.

Too bad, because he gave a good way to reconstruct the formula for solutions to a cubic equation when three real roots are involved. I solved the equation starting from Cardan's formula, but this method was definitely simpler.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by philmoore

Too bad, because he gave a good way to reconstruct the formula for solutions to a cubic equation when three real roots are involved. I solved the equation starting from Cardan's formula, but this method was definitely simpler.

THX.
Furthermore it was a derivation from first principles.

My typo arose because I was thinking:

C = x³ - Bx = a³cos(3t)/4

(where x=a cos(t) and a=SQR(4B/3) as before)

David

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by philmoore

Too bad, because he gave a good way to reconstruct the formula for solutions to a cubic equation when three real roots are involved. I solved the equation starting from Cardan's formula, but this method was definitely simpler.

Thank you for your concern, philmoore.

I do not rely on posters giving erroneous and misleading results:I dare say with even malevolent intentions.

When I said I skipped the post this was not to be taken literally. What I meant was that I checked the bottom line. It definitely did not tally and make sense so I did not waste my precious time with paper and pencil.

As I've said before and repeat again that I study posters and all their posts before I become hostile. If I find they are frauds I'm not afraid to expose them.

To me they are mathematical charlatans and there are quite a few amongst us whom I have brought to book. These guys are not interested in the TRUTH. Neither are they interested in learning. They glee in confusion and spreading mental chaos-just a pastime whilst their computers are reeling off digits. Some of our posters have even sent me PM's warning me of the same.

Well I have with me silent genuine friends Hall and Knight- and Bernard and Child who have written excellent books on 'Higher Algebra'. B&C are more advanced and meant for mathematical scholarships.

In them is all I need for my research work. At this juncture I wont say more.

Thank you,

Mally

[mfgoode]

Philmoore I was not allowed to edit my previous post and had to log in again.
Well that does not daunt me in sending a further post which would have been a foot note to my previous post.
Please dont anglicise the name Cardano. The full name is Gorolamo Cardano and he published his formula in 1545 in his booK Ars magna. Being a teacher in Maths give credit where credit is due and please don't distort or cut short.

Mally

[philmoore]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

I do not rely on posters giving erroneous and misleading results...

I am grateful, Mally, that you never do this, and that you are probably the only poster here who never makes mistakes.

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by philmoore

I am grateful, Mally, that you never do this, and that you are probably the only poster here who never makes mistakes.

Now, Now, Now, my dear philmoore, this is what is termed a hyperbole.

I have never claimed all what you say. I am fallible like all the rest of us. I am the first to admit my mistakes and thanked whoever has pointed them out always.

Yes I have made many mistakes during my tenure with this forum but I have never made them to mislead others or delude them. Many a time I have followed up posts painstakingly to learn some truth in them. Alas I have gone
after many well meaning problems and found I have been taken on a wild good chase so I have got wary.

No I am not the only one who never makes mistakes. I am proud to say there are many genuine posters beside myself who try to avoid mistakes as far as possible and don't attribute them to typographical errors.

Well philmoore I have said enough. There is coming a day and very soon too that you and others will be proud to claim that you have even been privileged to correspond with me but I'm not the one to count my chickens before they are hatched.

So with that I bid you adieu, but I have something to say for your other posts currently running.

Mally

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by philmoore

I am grateful, Mally, that you never do this, and that you are probably the only poster here who never makes mistakes.

This is what is called a pure hyperbole

Mally

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

This is what is called a pure hyperbole

Mally

Wacky please do the needful and delete this post #41 as above I have already elaborated on it
THX
Mally

[davieddy]

If we relax the "simple" stipulation that AB,BC,CD,DA do not intersect
we get two "figures of 8". In one, AB crosses CD, in the other BC crosses
the diameter DA.

Perhaps the two negative solutions give the diameter in these cases?

David

[philmoore]

Glad to see that your hyperbole detector is working, Mally. But it wasn't just the remarks on errors, it was the imputation of "malevolent intentions" that struck me as really very strange. I suspect your malevolence detector is working in overdrive.