|
|
|
|
|
|
by czrnb
2385 days ago
|
|
|
There is an error in the (pixelated) example that is given int the MIT tech review article (z² = 3 instead of -3). I think the fact that the author of the news missed this, that he probably took a screenshot of the formulas rewritten in Word, and that he was compelled to write such a long article on such a simple topic speaks for his level on the topic. The fact that he only lists the formal article as a reference instead of the announcement, video, and accessible blog post by Po-Shen Loh really baffles me. The original "disclosure" by Po-Shen Loh [0] is much less sensational and gives some context for his work (teaching middle school students). In the formal article, he is also stating that the method is very likely not __new__, but that he wants to popularize it in teaching. I think, as many other commenters pointed out, that there is no great breakthrough here. However "his" method may have the advantage of training the intuition of young students, by helping them understand the concepts of average and "deviation" (I'm not really sure how to call it in that case), and maybe visualizing them. [0]: https://www.poshenloh.com/quadratic |
|
|
I think the point of the arXiv article is this is a more straightforward /proof/ of the quadratic formula. That article has some interesting historical commentary that shows exactly where the author thinks his contribution fits - he is not naively coming up with something "new".
As far as computation of the roots goes, it is a slightly streamlined approach:
First, put the quadratic into canonical form by dividing by A, if necessary.
Then, take B/2 into a new variable, call it F. Get F^2.
The roots are then -F +- sqrt(F^2 - C)