Re: Note to Archimedes Plutonium

On 03/26/2024 11:05 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

Volney brought next idea :

On 3/25/2024 6:40 PM, Earle wrote:

AP:  You haven't posted here for the past month (since Feb. 20).  Are
you all right?
>
earle
*

>
Archie uses (used) Giggle Groups, which has been turned off. He
doesn't know how to access regular Usenet.

>
Don't tell him.

>
Oh, when Google was quitting Usenet, I asked AP about it
and offered to sponsor him a Usenet account, and he said
expressly that he would be happy posting on his own
Google Groups accounts, in quiet as he put it,
he said thanks and that he would carry on.
>
So, last I heard, AP was just wiling away on his latest
developments as they are in a forum of his own.
>
AP's developments as they are, are a sort of, "broken mathematics",
it's like, he's given something fundamentally broken, then
made make do, so, he sort of does, then what's sort of broken
is also explaining that, which instead takes a sort of generous
reading, with regards to his various and sundry numerical methods.
>
>
Numerical methods and approximations are quite a rage in
mathematics these days, finding analytical and closed forms
isn't always possible.
>
That then there's a usual notion that "retro-finitists" are
broken while "ultra-finitists" are blindered, though consciously,
in terms of "mathematics:  all of it", I suppose.
>
So, sometimes there are "greater cranks" with their "almost closed"
forms, which take quite a conscientious reading to determine.
>
Mathematics:  it's a theory.
>
>