Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

I'll say it again for the logic impaired. -- Larry Wall


tech / sci.math / Re: Mathematical Cranks

SubjectAuthor
* Re: Mathematical CranksArchimedes Plutonium
`- Re: Mathematical CranksArchimedes Plutonium

1
Re: Mathematical Cranks

<0c986b06-6e42-414e-b24f-1fe5183555d1n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=99907&group=sci.math#99907

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.math
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:31a2:b0:6a0:1d82:8907 with SMTP id bi34-20020a05620a31a200b006a01d828907mr2178289qkb.408.1652407207995;
Thu, 12 May 2022 19:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:7d86:0:b0:64a:5665:fb48 with SMTP id
y128-20020a257d86000000b0064a5665fb48mr2636282ybc.614.1652407207769; Thu, 12
May 2022 19:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 19:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2ghokt$11k@math.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:387:f:e17:0:0:0:3;
posting-account=fsC03QkAAAAwkSNcSEKmlcR-W_HNitEd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:387:f:e17:0:0:0:3
References: <2ghokt$11k@math.mps.ohio-state.edu>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0c986b06-6e42-414e-b24f-1fe5183555d1n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Mathematical Cranks
From: plutoniu...@gmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 02:00:07 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Archimedes Plutonium - Fri, 13 May 2022 02:00 UTC

No wonder Ohio State is in the weeds of mathematics, when its professor/s believe in b.s. of Kibo Parry M & Jan Burse that 938 is 12% short of 945 or that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse of 2 axes of symmetry yet cone has only 1 axis of symmetry, because Gerald Edgar is not a mathematician at all but a tramp that peddles falsehoods.

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 1:13:27 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Here you are!
> Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
> sections are ellipses.
>
> Some preliminaries:
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- < xh
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ < x0
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' < x h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x 0 > '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
 > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>  Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
 > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```.....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'...          ..-''    '     '  Hi, I am Gerald Edgar and do not want to admit the oval is the slant cut of a single cone, not the ellipse because I like to be dishonest and corrupt in math.
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``.........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'

4-Gerald Edgar needs to go to the Ohio State Univ student newspaper and publish the fact that he is sorry for having taught boneheaded geometry of mathematics with his slant cut in single cone being a ellipse, when it never was a ellipse, it was a Oval for pity sake. But the mind of Edgar was never cut out to be in mathematics in the first place. Gerald, publish the fact that you now see the light of day that a single cone has but 1 axis of symmetry and so the slant cut is obviously a Oval. Atone for your horrible teaching education that Gerald Edgar did in the past, of nothing but memorized b..s. and not true mathematics.
> 
> >
> > 3rd published book
> >
> > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> >
> > #11-2, 11th published book
> >
> > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > Preface:
> > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
> >
> > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
> >
> > To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > #134 in Calculus (Books)
> > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> >
> >
> > y
> > | /
> > | /
> > |/______ x
> >
> > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> >
> > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> >
> > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> >
> > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> >
> > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Mathematical Cranks

<4b3cbaa6-fe24-4469-b0cd-f58738b5a4e5n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=100021&group=sci.math#100021

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.math
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5b8c:0:b0:45a:9340:ef92 with SMTP id 12-20020ad45b8c000000b0045a9340ef92mr7136665qvp.85.1652511037845;
Fri, 13 May 2022 23:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:70c3:0:b0:2fe:c68c:aa1d with SMTP id
l186-20020a8170c3000000b002fec68caa1dmr4267045ywc.431.1652511037595; Fri, 13
May 2022 23:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 23:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0c986b06-6e42-414e-b24f-1fe5183555d1n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:387:c:5512:0:0:0:2;
posting-account=fsC03QkAAAAwkSNcSEKmlcR-W_HNitEd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:387:c:5512:0:0:0:2
References: <2ghokt$11k@math.mps.ohio-state.edu> <0c986b06-6e42-414e-b24f-1fe5183555d1n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4b3cbaa6-fe24-4469-b0cd-f58738b5a4e5n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Mathematical Cranks
From: plutoniu...@gmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 06:50:37 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 10707
 by: Archimedes Plutonium - Sat, 14 May 2022 06:50 UTC

Harvey Friedman, Christian Friesen, Ulrich Gerlach, Robert Gold

Ohio State Univ, why not admit the truth Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never the ellipse. OSU -- __truth always wins__ and your actions of hiring or __complacent with__ hate-stalker criminals of Kibo Parry M. or Jan Burse or Dan Christensen or their dozen allies of hatred, only shows that OSU is no longer in the business of science and truth but has gone corrupt.

Not much difference between the corrupt Donald Trump and his mindless "big lie" and OSU with their mindless big lie of ellipse a conic section.

No point in asking any Harvard professor which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle when the bozo the clowns cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.

Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Ohio State Univ-- why not tell the truth of science instead of being complacent or hiring a moron paid for hate-stalker like Kibo Parry M. You must know, truth always wins.
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 4:59:49 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>why do you have to be such a crybaby about the ellipse being a conic
> section?

OSU math faculty
Jean-Francois Lafont, David Anderson, Chunsheng Ban, Vitaly Bergelson, Janet Best, Luis Casian, Sergei Chmutov, James Cogdell, Ovidiu Costin, Rodica Costin, Michael Davis, Andrzej Derdzinski, Zbigniew Fiedorowicz, James Fowler, Avner Friedman, Martin Golubitsky, Ian Hamilton, John Harper, Ivo Herzog, Niles Johnson, Matthew Kahle, Eric Katz, Thomas Kerler, Barbara Keyfitz, Jan Lang, Alexander Leibman, Alan Loper, Wenzhi Luo, John Maharry, Jeffrey McNeal, Facundo Memoli, Crichton Ogle, Bishun Pandey, Grzegorz Rempala, Syed Tariq Rizvi, Nimish Shah, Aurel Stan, Saleh Tanveer, David Terman, Daniel Thompson, Fei-Ran Tian, Joseph Tien, Yulong Xing, Dongbin Xiu, Bradford Findell, Gregory Baker, Robert Brown, Dan Burghelea, Timothy Carlson, Herb Clemens, Thomas Dowling, Alexander Dynin, Zita Divis, Yuval Flicker, Harvey Friedman, Christian Friesen, Ulrich Gerlach, Robert Gold, Gerald Edgar

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor