Re: Programmer's unpaid overtime.
From: Programmer Dude (Chris_at_Sonnack.com)
Date: 12/10/03
- Next message: Fred L. Kleinschmidt: "Re: cannot resolve symbol???????????????/"
- Previous message: Programmer Dude: "Re: Language to Learn"
- In reply to: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: Programmer's unpaid overtime."
- Next in thread: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Programmer's unpaid overtime."
- Reply: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Programmer's unpaid overtime."
- Reply: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: Programmer's unpaid overtime."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:58:58 -0600
"Edward G. Nilges" wrote:
>> Polynomials have the basic form: ax^0 + bx^1 + cx^2 ...
>
> HA HA HA HA HA
>
> Wolfram research: "A polynomial is a mathematical expression
> involving a sum of powers in one or more variables multiplied
> by coefficients."
>
> In this definition, the polynomial is not restricted to rank 2.
Of course not. Your accuracy and attention to detail remains at
its usual low level. You snipped (and I restored) the ellipses
that means the series continues.
>> It's *because* I do understand the theory that my versions
>> blew the doors off yours (AND were far more maintainable
> and readable).
>
> What understanding have you displayed above? You have made the
> incorrect claim that "Polynomials have the basic form:
> ax^0 + bx^1 + cx^2".
Nope. You just read it wrong.
> Quite apart from your nonstandard notation, which lists the
> exponents in the wrong order, you have made the WRONG STATEMENT
> that polynomials are restricted to a highest power of two.
Nope. You just read it wrong. As for the order, it *was*
deliberately reversed (not that it matters, as summation is
commutative) exactly so I could add ellipses at the end to
indicate a series.
> A polynomial, FYI, is of the form
>
> K(n)x^n ... K(2)x^2 + K(1)x^1 + K(0)x^0
>
> where K(i) is a constant.
Yep. That's another way to write the same thing. I wasn't sure
you'd understand that more sophisticated notation, so I tried
to make it easier for you. It seems that, in providing you with
something you didn't quite recognize, you failed to understand
it at all.
Ironically, you indulge in the same "go for the throat" attitude
you blame us for. Shame that high moral ground is so elusive for
you, eh? (And this is exactly why I name you Vile Hypocrite.)
> And if terms are missing, or the exponents are out of sequence,
> the normalized expression is STILL a polynomial.
Obviously. That's why I felt free to reverse them from the
usual order.
Ed, I have to ask. Why do you persist in a place where *everyone*
thinks you're a total idiot and utterly incompetent? No one here
seems to have any shred of regard for you whatsoever, and it seems
this is true in other groups you've visited. What do you get out
of this? Is your life so empty and lonely that negative attention
is better than whatever else you have in your life?
I just don't get it. If I got the response from people you do,
I'd be asking myself some very serious questions about why. And
I sure don't think I'd hang out with people who had no regard
for me.
Why are you here?
-- |_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________|
- Next message: Fred L. Kleinschmidt: "Re: cannot resolve symbol???????????????/"
- Previous message: Programmer Dude: "Re: Language to Learn"
- In reply to: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: Programmer's unpaid overtime."
- Next in thread: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Programmer's unpaid overtime."
- Reply: Richard Heathfield: "Re: Programmer's unpaid overtime."
- Reply: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: Programmer's unpaid overtime."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|