>The ironical thing was that I had to go
>back to 1950s high-school cubic-solving memories,
>for the 16th-century part of the proof.
>These memories were better than practically
>anything on the web. There are six essentially
>different cases of the reduced cubic and almost
>no-one has them all carefully laid out on a webpage;
>instead they give you equations that will spit
>out complex nonsense for real roots,
>and/or divide by zero, in some of the cases.
>Finally I found a decent handling, referenced to
> > Birkhoff, G. and Mac Lane, S.
> > A Survey of Modern Algebra,
> > 5th ed. New York: Macmillan,
> > pp. 90-91, 106-107, and 414-417, 1996.
>amid a load of otherwise misleading dross at
>The rest of Eric's page is worse than useless
>to a programmer, but the B+M equations were
>as good as my highschool memories.
>We should have more textbooks written
>by true mathematicians!
What are you waiting for, this could be your claim to fame :)
>Unsubscribe by an email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
>The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/