CLARIFICATION below.
"KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:FRaob.199881$0v4.15566505 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]
| I've rewritten the underpinning Maths, in it's
| =entirety=. No "eliptical functions" are
| required :-]
| [...]
My statement, quoted above, is too-strong.
I've just found a some other ways to
calculate with respect to nonlinear sys-
tems. [An example exists in the Proof
of Fermat's Last Theorem I posted more
than a decade ago - "Triangulation", and,
of course, I use the V/Ar NL-P almost as
a matter of course [it relies in spherical
Geometry, so it might be a superset that
includes eliptical functions - I've not ex-
plored that possibility because I only do
Maths to get from 'point A' to 'point B'
during this or that analysis.
I don't "rewrite" anything "in its entirety".
Just develop Sufficient means to get from
'point A' to 'point B', and have a g'zillion
techniques that I use in doing so. I always
solve the problem in the ol' noggin' lab,
then, if doing so has Worth, 'encapsulate'
the solution in a little QBasic app, so that
others can consider the gist of it.
Sometines, there's a lot included between
'point A' and 'point B', and the apps I post
don't explicitly convey all that's actually in-
there. The apps 'get-bigger' comensurate
with one's experience with respect to the
"lot" - that is, they apply to everything that's
in-there, but such cannot be discerned
unless one is experienced with respect to
what's in-there.
Anyway, that's what I meant by "entirety",
realizing shortly after posting the prior msg
that, because the connotation of "entirety"
is dependent upon experience, folks probably
won't get it.
Hence this clarification.
[Hey, I understand what I'm saying :-]
ken [k. p. collins]