Re: [Maxima-discuss] Is there a way to expand ((1 + y )^ (1/n)) for y and n > 0?

[Stavros M. (Σ. Μ. <mac...@al...>]

All this because you'd rather see an expansion in terms of one well-known
standard function rather than another?

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:41 PM Susmita/Rajib <bkp...@gm...>
wrote:

> I would consider an honour to have a post from Dr. Stavros Macrakis,
> if the poster is the same researcher that Google-Scholar and
> ResearchGate have information pages on.
>
> Have pity upon me, Sir, Dr. Macrakis, an inconspicuous ant compared to
> your stature; and forgive me, Sir, for my insolence.
>
> Sir, I was considering the books, American Reason (Susan Jacobi),
> Brilliant America (Charles Pierce), The State Of The American Mind
> (Amechi Okolo) when I read your reply. Great words, Sir. Yours, I must
> admit.
>
> I felt so annoyed at the long-dead William of Ockham and his razor and
> the books that recorded the slow and pained growth of mathematics,
> that I for a while thought of throwing those books on history away.
> William must have sensed my wrath in his grave and must have tremored
> in fright.
>
> Not to mention that the books had me naively believe that Binomial
> Theorem began its painstaking journey from 2nd Century BC by Euclid,
> to 6th Century India right through the 10th Century Bhaskara who noted
> the Combinatorial form in his book, right up to the Muslim Scholars
> who disseminated the knowledge from India to Europe, then Blaise
> Pascal and finally Issac Newton, who established the generalised
> Binomial theorem with rational coefficients by 1665.
>
> It is rightly upheld by the devout that the almighty God who, with one
> twitch of his finger — of course, only He knows why he twitched it —
> generated a complete treatise on all there is, on Supernatural Reality
> including Mathematics, including Supersymmetry and Grand Unified Field
> theory, and man is to show his allegiance to God by rote-ing and
> repeating what God has his devout agents scribbled down.
>
> Comprehension is never expected from His worshippers. The first among
> us to understand a line of God's great Treatise, will rightly be
> honoured with the title of a "Discoverer". So no one has taken up the
> honour for being the discoverer of GUT.
>
> I, the obdurate agnostic, had wrongly the temerity to believe on the
> equally agnostic books of the history of mathematics that sought to
> mislead us. By almost having me believe that Brook Taylor came later
> than Newton and formalised the work of James Gregory, the proponent of
> the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, his early version of the theorem
> in 1712 and the series in 1715, but not until Joseph Lagrange from
> 1772, was the work complete.
>
> I was also confused by my beliefs that Leonhard Euler's Integral of
> the First Kind was also studied by Legendre and Binet and extension of
> the factorial to non-integer arguments was first attempted by
> Bernoulli & Goldbach in the 1720s, and was solved by Euler around
> 1729.
>
> So, my Proposal, in the honour of your jolting me out of my stupor,
> would be:        since Quantum Mechanics showed that Classical Mechanics
> was a special case of the microscopic phenomena in the macroscopic
> world, shouldn't the name of Newton from the Laws of Motion be struck
> off and replaced by Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, Fermi, Feynman, et
> al, and from the Universal Law of Gravitation to be replaced by Albert
> Einstein? Since the same God offered the title of Discoverer to the
> individual who first understood God's Great Book?
>
> Sir, could I be pardoned for writing this tiny note and given the
> opportunity to atone for my sins of misplaced beliefs?
>
> Regards,
> Rajib
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>