4-Sonja Currie, Witwatersrand,Margaret Archibald,Charlotte Brennan,Betsie Jonck, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
>
5> > > Frenchman Lacassagne 1885: "Every society has the criminals it deserves"
> > > > >
6 > > AP 2021: "Every University is _responsible_ for the filthy stalker or filthy spammer who attended that school and is now a insane nonstop gigolo stalker or g-strap thong spammer on Usenet". Most college professors are new to the age of internet and the responsibilities have not seeped into them as yet, that if they have a mindless spammer in their community, it is their responsibility to guide and direct that misplaced soul to a rightful venue to unleash his/her mind.
> > > > >
> > >8 > > AP 1990s: The Internet is new form of schooling with its openness, its publicity, and its international reach that College degrees in science can be passed out but also be made null & void if the beholder becomes an outrageous stalker & spammer of science on the Internet.
> 
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > 3> 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)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
78 > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > > > > > > Preface:
> > > > > > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > > > > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > > > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > > > > > Language: English
> > > > > > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > > > > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > > > > > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > > > > > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > > > > > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > > > > > > > > 

> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > > > > > John Carter
> > > > > > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > 99> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> >98 > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

5-Sonja Currie, Witwatersrand,Margaret Archibald,Charlotte Brennan,Betsie Jonck, why John Gabriel a decades long 6 spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is
7 an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it
8 that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is 9 it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

Witwatersrand-Sonja Currie, Witwatersrand-Margaret Archibald,Charlotte Brennan,Betsie Jonck, why John Gabriel a decades long 6 spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is
> 7 an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it
> 8 that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is 9 it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

tisdag 12 april 2022 kl. 08:25:47 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Witwatersrand-Sonja Currie, Witwatersrand-Margaret Archibald,Charlotte Brennan,Betsie Jonck, why John Gabriel a decades long 6 spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is
> > 7 an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it
> > 8 that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is 9 it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
You shouldn't talk about failing mathematics, given you are utterly trash at it

1 Witwatersrand Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> > 
> > 
> > > >
> > > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > 2> 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)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > Preface:
> > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > >
> > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > Language: English
> > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > > > 

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > Physics dept
> > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > John Carter
> > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > Darell Comins
> > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > Arthur Every
> > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > >
> > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > >
> > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > Florian Luca
> > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium

J.Gabriel spam Betsie Jonck,Jesse Alt,Margaret Archibald, Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
>
> 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)
>
>
> Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> Preface:
> First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
>
> The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
>
> My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
>
> Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
>
> Product details
> File Size: 773 KB
> Print Length: 72 pages
> Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported 
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> 

>
>
> Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> Physics dept
> Joao Rodrigues
> Somnath Bhattacharyya
> John Carter
> Andrew Chen
> Darell Comins
> Robert De Mello Koch
> Arthur Every
> Andrew Forbes
> Kelvin Goldstein
> Vishnu Jejjala
> Robert Joubert
> Jonathan Keartland
> Nukri Komin
> Bruce Mellado
> Deena Naidoo
> Mervin Naidoo
> Alex Quandt
> Elias Sideras-Haddad
> Martin Ntwaeaborwa
>
>
> Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
>
> Dr. D. Brijlall
> Dr. D Day
> Dr. DB Lortan
> Dr. A Maharaj
> Dr. S Moyo
> Dr. S Rajah
> Dr. D Singh
>
> University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> Betsie Jonck
> Jesse Alt
> Margaret Archibald
> Charlotte Brennan
> Sonja Currie
> Alexander Davison
> Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> Marie Grobbelaar
> Yorick Hardy
> Meira Hockman
> Sameerah Jamal
> Abdul Kara
> Arnold Knopfmacher
> Wen Chi Kou
> Christopher Kriel
> Rugare Kwashira
> Florian Luca
> Ronnie Maartens
> Carminda Mennen
> Manfred Moller
> Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> Augustine Munagi
> Loyiso Nongxa
> Bruce Watson
> Yevhen Zelenyuk
>
>
> 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

Joao Rodrigues, Betsie Jonck,Jesse Alt,Margaret Archibald, Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> >
> > 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)
> >
> >
> > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science..
> > Preface:
> > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> >
> > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> >
> > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> >
> > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> >
> > Product details
> > File Size: 773 KB
> > Print Length: 72 pages
> > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > Language: English
> > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > Lending: Enabled
> > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > 

> >
> >
> > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > Physics dept
> > Joao Rodrigues
> > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > John Carter
> > Andrew Chen
> > Darell Comins
> > Robert De Mello Koch
> > Arthur Every
> > Andrew Forbes
> > Kelvin Goldstein
> > Vishnu Jejjala
> > Robert Joubert
> > Jonathan Keartland
> > Nukri Komin
> > Bruce Mellado
> > Deena Naidoo
> > Mervin Naidoo
> > Alex Quandt
> > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> >
> >
> > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> >
> > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > Dr. D Day
> > Dr. DB Lortan
> > Dr. A Maharaj
> > Dr. S Moyo
> > Dr. S Rajah
> > Dr. D Singh
> >
> > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > Betsie Jonck
> > Jesse Alt
> > Margaret Archibald
> > Charlotte Brennan
> > Sonja Currie
> > Alexander Davison
> > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > Marie Grobbelaar
> > Yorick Hardy
> > Meira Hockman
> > Sameerah Jamal
> > Abdul Kara
> > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > Wen Chi Kou
> > Christopher Kriel
> > Rugare Kwashira
> > Florian Luca
> > Ronnie Maartens
> > Carminda Mennen
> > Manfred Moller
> > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > Augustine Munagi
> > Loyiso Nongxa
> > Bruce Watson
> > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> >
> >
> > 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

2>Joao Rodrigues, Betsie Jonck,Jesse Alt,Margaret Archibald, Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

#5-1, 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)

#5-2, 45th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Releasein General Geometry

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science..
Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.

Length: 399 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2023 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 399 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 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 ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)

#5-4, 56th published book

COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages

7>Joao Rodrigues, Betsie Jonck,Jesse Alt,Margaret Archibald, Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

I am confident that if a MRI scan of John Gabriel were to take place, that it would reveal a huge massive white spot of nerves in the brain as a deep groove circuit, with no offramps that go round and round and is seen as nothing but spam.

My 187th published book

Brain diseases due to deep-grooved electrical circuits with no off-ramps // psychology

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) format: Amazon Kindle

Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of a MRI scan of brains, and showing white-areas for abnormalities for disorder or disease.

#5-1, 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)

#5-2, 45th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Releasein General Geometry

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science..
Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.

Length: 399 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2023 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 399 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 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 ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)

#5-4, 56th published book

8>Joao Rodrigues, Betsie Jonck,Jesse Alt,Margaret Archibald, Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

I am confident that if a MRI scan of John Gabriel were to take place, that it would reveal a huge massive white spot of nerves in the brain as a deep groove circuit, with no offramps that go round and round and is seen as nothing but spam.

My 187th published book

Brain diseases due to deep-grooved electrical circuits with no off-ramps // psychology

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) format: Amazon Kindle

Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of a MRI scan of brains, and showing white-areas for abnormalities for disorder or disease.

#5-1, 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)

#5-2, 45th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Releasein General Geometry

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science..
Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.

Length: 399 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2023 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 399 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 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 ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)

#5-4, 56th published book

John Gabriel on Lisa Randall, Dr. Hau, Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez, Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish, David J.. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita, Arthur B. McDonald, Francois Englert, Saul Perlmutter Gabriel why?? Because none can ask the simple question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP claims is the Dirac magnetic monopole. They believe their mindless Standard Model, these imps of physics could never multiply muon mass 105MeV by 9 and see it is within Sigma Error of the neutron and proton (alleged proton rest mass) of 940MeV. Meaning what? Meaning that the proton is a composite of 8 muon rings and the neutron is 9 muon rings. And the muon is the real true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law of creating new electrical energy-- the reason stars and Sun shine. But no, the imps of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs put physics knowledge and understanding backwards in time, to caveman mentality physics with their impish Standard Model.

>
Spam everyday in sci.math by John Gabriel hiding behind fake names

> Why do imps of physics like Glashow or Higgs never understand that a do nothing electron and do nothing proton are imp reasoning in physics. Whereas AP's particles are always doing some law of Electrodynamics. And why does Nobel award imps of science, do they like imp physics instead of true physics?
>
> > Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, Yoichiro Nambu, John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, David J. Gross -- please, please can they ever ask the simple question, of which is the atom's true real electron, the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ..
> > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> > , . `.' ' `.
> > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> > . ; .' . `. ;
> > ; . ' `. . '
> > . ' ` `. |
> > . '. '
> > . 0 0 ' `.
> > ' `
> > ; `
> > .' `
> > ; U `
> > ; '; `
> > : | ;.. :` `
> > : `;. ```. .-; | '
> > '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am John Gabriel, a failure of math with 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction of the fully discredited Boole Logic, and my idiocy of calculus, for John Gabriel is too stupid to have a geometry proof of calculus, worse yet, I, John Gabriel still thinks the slant cut in cone is an ellipse when a High School student showed me it to be a Oval, never the ellipse. whose game is to block spam sci.math and my other spam buddies like Amine throw AP off the front page.
> > ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> > ` . ' '
> > / ` `. ' ' .
> > / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> > / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> > / .'' ; ` .' `
> > ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> > "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> > ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> > :' | ' ` , `. `
> > | ' ` ' `. `
> > ` ' ` ; `. |
> > `.' ` ; `-'
> > `...'
> >
> > Stupid Nobel Physics prizes to those who cannot even ask the question of which is the atom's real true electron, the muon or 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole
> >
> >
> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > Arthur B. McDonald
> > Francois Englert
> > Saul Perlmutter
> > Brian P. Schmidt
> > Adam G. Riess
> > Makoto Kobayashi
> > Toshihide Maskawa
> > Yoichiro Nambu
> > John C. Mather
> > George F. Smoot
> > Roy J. Glauber
> > David J. Gross
> > Hugh David Politzer
> > Frank Wilczek
> > Raymond Davis Jr.
> > Masatoshi Koshiba
> > Riccardo Giacconi
> > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > Martinus J.G. Veltman
> > Jerome I. Friedman
> > Henry W. Kendall
> > Richard E. Taylor
> > Carlo Rubbia
> > Simon van der Meer
> > William Alfred Fowler
> > Kenneth G. Wilson
> > James Watson Cronin
> > Val Logsdon Fitch
> > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > Steven Weinberg
> > .
> > .
> > little fishes
> > .
> > .
> > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> >
> > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > .
> > .
> > John Baez
> > Brian Greene
> > Lisa Randall
> > Alan H. Guth
> > Michael E. Brown
> > Konstantin Batygin
> > Ben Bullock
> > Larry Harson
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > Edward Witten
> 
> >
> >
> > > HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles..
> > > Length: 17 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • Publication Date : December 18, 2019
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 17 pages
> > > • File Size : 698 KB
> > > • ASIN : B082WYGVNG
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > #1-4, 105th published book
> > >
> > > Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
> > > Length: 39 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • Publication Date : March 24, 2020
> > > • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > > • ASIN : B086BGSNXN
> > > • Print Length : 39 pages
> > > • File Size : 935 KB
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > #6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
> > > #315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > > #4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > 

> > >
> > > #1-5, 112th published book
> > >
> > > New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
> > > Length: 20 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN : B0875SVDC7
> > > • Publication date : April 15, 2020
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • File size : 1134 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print length : 20 pages
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > ◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > ◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > >
> > > #1-6, 135th published book
> > > QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy. The muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus. Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN : B08K47K5BB
> > > • Publication date : September 25, 2020
> > > • Language : English
> > > • File size : 587 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > > • Print length : 25 pages
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #291,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #13 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > ◦ #52 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > ◦ #334 in General Chemistry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #1-7, 138th published book
> > > The true NUCLEUS of Atoms are inner toruses moving around in circles of a larger outer torus// Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment revisited // Atom Totality Series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > The geometry of Atoms of the Table of Chemical Elements is torus geometry. We know this to be true for the torus geometry forms the maximum electricity production when using the Faraday Law. We see this in Old Physics with their tokamak toruses attempting to make fusion, by accelerating particles of the highest possible acceleration for the torus is that geometry. But the torus is the geometry not only of maximum acceleration but of maximum electrical generation by having a speeding bar magnet go around and around inside a torus== the Faraday law, where the torus rings are the copper closed wire loop. The protons of atoms are 8 loops of rings in a torus geometry, and the electron of atoms is the muon as bar magnet, almost the same size as the proton loops but small enough to fit inside proton loops. It is torus geometry that we investigate the geometry of all atoms.
> > > Length: 41 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • Publication Date : October 9, 2020
> > > • File Size : 828 KB
> > > • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 41 pages
> > > • ASIN : B08KZT5TCD
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > #1-8, 1st published book
> > >
> > > Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > Last revision 7Apr2021. This was AP's first published science book.
> > >
> > > Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.
> > >
> > > Foreward:
> > > I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences.
> > > Length: 632 pages
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > File Size: 1132 KB
> > > Print Length: 632 pages
> > > Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > Language: English
> > > ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
> > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> > > Word Wise: Enabled
> > > Lending: Enabled
> > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > #1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > #8526 in Physics (Books)
> > > #18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)
> > > y z
> > > | /
> > > | /
> > > |/______ 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-1, 137th published book
> > >
> > > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> > >
> > > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> > >
> > > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> > >
> > > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > > Length: 64 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • File Size : 790 KB
> > > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > >
> > > #2-2, 145th published book
> > >
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • File size : 682 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print length : 78 pages
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> > >
> > > #2-3, 146th published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-4, 151st published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> > >
> > > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> > >
> > > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1033 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > y z
> > > | /
> > > | /
> > > |/______ 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
> > >
> > > #3-1, 2nd published book
> > > 
> > >
> > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
> > >
> > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
> > >
> > > Length: 1150 pages
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • File Size : 2167 KB
> > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 1150 pages
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > #1324 in General Chemistry
> > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

John Gabriel on Lisa Randall, Dr. Hau, Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez, Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish, David J.. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita, Arthur B. McDonald, Francois Englert, Saul Perlmutter Gabriel why?? Because none can ask the simple question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0..5MeV particle which AP claims is the Dirac magnetic monopole. They believe their mindless Standard Model, these imps of physics could never multiply muon mass 105MeV by 9 and see it is within Sigma Error of the neutron and proton (alleged proton rest mass) of 940MeV. Meaning what? Meaning that the proton is a composite of 8 muon rings and the neutron is 9 muon rings. And the muon is the real true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law of creating new electrical energy-- the reason stars and Sun shine. But no, the imps of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs put physics knowledge and understanding backwards in time, to caveman mentality physics with their impish Standard Model.

>
Spam everyday in sci.math by John Gabriel hiding behind fake names

> Why do imps of physics like Glashow or Higgs never understand that a do nothing electron and do nothing proton are imp reasoning in physics. Whereas AP's particles are always doing some law of Electrodynamics. And why does Nobel award imps of science, do they like imp physics instead of true physics?
>
> > Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, Yoichiro Nambu, John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, David J. Gross -- please, please can they ever ask the simple question, of which is the atom's true real electron, the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ..
> > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> > , . `.' ' `.
> > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> > . ; .' . `. ;
> > ; . ' `. . '
> > . ' ` `. |
> > . '. '
> > . 0 0 ' `.
> > ' `
> > ; `
> > .' `
> > ; U `
> > ; '; `
> > : | ;.. :` `
> > : `;. ```. .-; | '
> > '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am John Gabriel, a failure of math with 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction of the fully discredited Boole Logic, and my idiocy of calculus, for John Gabriel is too stupid to have a geometry proof of calculus, worse yet, I, John Gabriel still thinks the slant cut in cone is an ellipse when a High School student showed me it to be a Oval, never the ellipse. whose game is to block spam sci.math and my other spam buddies like Amine throw AP off the front page.
> > ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> > ` . ' '
> > / ` `. ' ' .
> > / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> > / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> > / .'' ; ` .' `
> > ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> > "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> > ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> > :' | ' ` , `. `
> > | ' ` ' `. `
> > ` ' ` ; `. |
> > `.' ` ; `-'
> > `...'
> >
> > Stupid Nobel Physics prizes to those who cannot even ask the question of which is the atom's real true electron, the muon or 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole
> >
> >
> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > Arthur B. McDonald
> > Francois Englert
> > Saul Perlmutter
> > Brian P. Schmidt
> > Adam G. Riess
> > Makoto Kobayashi
> > Toshihide Maskawa
> > Yoichiro Nambu
> > John C. Mather
> > George F. Smoot
> > Roy J. Glauber
> > David J. Gross
> > Hugh David Politzer
> > Frank Wilczek
> > Raymond Davis Jr.
> > Masatoshi Koshiba
> > Riccardo Giacconi
> > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > Martinus J.G. Veltman
> > Jerome I. Friedman
> > Henry W. Kendall
> > Richard E. Taylor
> > Carlo Rubbia
> > Simon van der Meer
> > William Alfred Fowler
> > Kenneth G. Wilson
> > James Watson Cronin
> > Val Logsdon Fitch
> > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > Steven Weinberg
> > .
> > .
> > little fishes
> > .
> > .
> > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> >
> > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > .
> > .
> > John Baez
> > Brian Greene
> > Lisa Randall
> > Alan H. Guth
> > Michael E. Brown
> > Konstantin Batygin
> > Ben Bullock
> > Larry Harson
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > Edward Witten
> 
> >
> >
> > > HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles..
> > > Length: 17 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • Publication Date : December 18, 2019
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 17 pages
> > > • File Size : 698 KB
> > > • ASIN : B082WYGVNG
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > #1-4, 105th published book
> > >
> > > Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
> > > Length: 39 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • Publication Date : March 24, 2020
> > > • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > > • ASIN : B086BGSNXN
> > > • Print Length : 39 pages
> > > • File Size : 935 KB
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > #6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
> > > #315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > > #4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > 

> > >
> > > #1-5, 112th published book
> > >
> > > New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
> > > Length: 20 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN : B0875SVDC7
> > > • Publication date : April 15, 2020
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • File size : 1134 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print length : 20 pages
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > ◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > ◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > >
> > > #1-6, 135th published book
> > > QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy. The muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus. Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN : B08K47K5BB
> > > • Publication date : September 25, 2020
> > > • Language : English
> > > • File size : 587 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > > • Print length : 25 pages
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #291,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #13 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > ◦ #52 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > ◦ #334 in General Chemistry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #1-7, 138th published book
> > > The true NUCLEUS of Atoms are inner toruses moving around in circles of a larger outer torus// Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment revisited // Atom Totality Series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > The geometry of Atoms of the Table of Chemical Elements is torus geometry. We know this to be true for the torus geometry forms the maximum electricity production when using the Faraday Law. We see this in Old Physics with their tokamak toruses attempting to make fusion, by accelerating particles of the highest possible acceleration for the torus is that geometry. But the torus is the geometry not only of maximum acceleration but of maximum electrical generation by having a speeding bar magnet go around and around inside a torus== the Faraday law, where the torus rings are the copper closed wire loop. The protons of atoms are 8 loops of rings in a torus geometry, and the electron of atoms is the muon as bar magnet, almost the same size as the proton loops but small enough to fit inside proton loops. It is torus geometry that we investigate the geometry of all atoms.
> > > Length: 41 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • Publication Date : October 9, 2020
> > > • File Size : 828 KB
> > > • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 41 pages
> > > • ASIN : B08KZT5TCD
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > #1-8, 1st published book
> > >
> > > Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > Last revision 7Apr2021. This was AP's first published science book.
> > >
> > > Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.
> > >
> > > Foreward:
> > > I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences.
> > > Length: 632 pages
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > File Size: 1132 KB
> > > Print Length: 632 pages
> > > Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > Language: English
> > > ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
> > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> > > Word Wise: Enabled
> > > Lending: Enabled
> > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > #1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > #8526 in Physics (Books)
> > > #18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)
> > > y z
> > > | /
> > > | /
> > > |/______ 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-1, 137th published book
> > >
> > > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> > >
> > > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> > >
> > > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> > >
> > > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > > Length: 64 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • File Size : 790 KB
> > > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > >
> > > #2-2, 145th published book
> > >
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • File size : 682 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print length : 78 pages
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> > >
> > > #2-3, 146th published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-4, 151st published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> > >
> > > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> > >
> > > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1033 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > y z
> > > | /
> > > | /
> > > |/______ 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
> > >
> > > #3-1, 2nd published book
> > > 
> > >
> > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
> > >
> > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
> > >
> > > Length: 1150 pages
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • File Size : 2167 KB
> > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 1150 pages
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > #1324 in General Chemistry
> > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Joao Rodrigues, Betsie Jonck, Jesse Alt, Margaret Archibald, Witwatersrand no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing in much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. Why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
>
> I am confident that if a MRI scan of John Gabriel were to take place, that it would reveal a huge massive white spot of nerves in the brain as a deep groove circuit, with no offramps that go round and round and is seen as nothing but spam.
>
> My 187th published book
>
> Brain diseases due to deep-grooved electrical circuits with no off-ramps // psychology
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) format: Amazon Kindle
>
> Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of a MRI scan of brains, and showing white-areas for abnormalities for disorder or disease.
>
>
>
>
> #5-1, 134th published book
>
> Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.
>
> Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)
>
>
>
> #5-2, 45th published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
>
>
>
> #1 New Releasein General Geometry
>
>
> Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.
> Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.
>
> This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.
>
> It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.
>
> Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.
>
> Length: 399 pages
>
>
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 2023 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 399 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> #15 in General Geometry
> #223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
>
>
>
>
> #5-3, 55th published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.
>
> Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
>
> Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.
>
> The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.
>
> And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.
>
> But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.
>
> Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.
>
> The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 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 ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)
>
>
> 

>
> #5-4, 56th published book
>
> COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
>
> #1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
>
>
> This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
> Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
> Length: 54 pages
>
>
> Product details
> File Size: 1035 KB
> Print Length: 64 pages
> Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
> Publication Date: August 18, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #318 in Calculus (Books)
> #48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> 

> #5-5, 72nd published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.
>
> Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
> Length: 105 pages
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)
>
>
> #5-6, 75th published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
>
> This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.
>
> Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.
>
> Length: 175 pages
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B0836F1YF6
> Publication date : December 26, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 741 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 175 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)
>
>
>
> #5-7, 89th published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
>
> Last revision was 6Feb2021.
> Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own.. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.
>
> Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.
>
> Length: 110 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)
>
> #5-8, 90th published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
>
> Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.
>
> Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.
>
> My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.
>
> So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project.. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.
>
> Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.
>
> Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
> Length: 296 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #13 in General Geometry
> ◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
>
>
>
> #5-8, 160th published book
>
> MATHOPEDIA-- List of 80 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 28Apr2022. And this is AP's 160th book of Science.
> Preface:
> A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.
> The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.
> The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.
> Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.
> I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1149 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Joao Rodrigues, Betsie Jonck, Jesse Alt, Margaret Archibald, Witwatersrand, Andrew Wiles, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing in much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. Why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> >
> > I am confident that if a MRI scan of John Gabriel were to take place, that it would reveal a huge massive white spot of nerves in the brain as a deep groove circuit, with no offramps that go round and round and is seen as nothing but spam.
> >
> > My 187th published book
> >
> > Brain diseases due to deep-grooved electrical circuits with no off-ramps // psychology
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) format: Amazon Kindle
> >
> > Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of a MRI scan of brains, and showing white-areas for abnormalities for disorder or disease.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-1, 134th published book
> >
> > Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-2, 45th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #1 New Releasein General Geometry
> >
> >
> > Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.
> > Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.
> >
> > This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.
> >
> > It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.
> >
> > Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.
> >
> > Length: 399 pages
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 2023 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 399 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > #15 in General Geometry
> > #223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-3, 55th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.
> >
> > Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
> >
> > Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.
> >
> > The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism.. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.
> >
> > And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.
> >
> > But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.
> >
> > Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.
> >
> > The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 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 ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> > 

> >
> > #5-4, 56th published book
> >
> > COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> > #1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> >
> >
> > This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
> > Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
> > Length: 54 pages
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > File Size: 1035 KB
> > Print Length: 64 pages
> > Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
> > Publication Date: August 18, 2019
> > Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
> > Language: English
> > ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > Lending: Enabled
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > #38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > #318 in Calculus (Books)
> > #48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > 

> > #5-5, 72nd published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.
> >
> > Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension..
> > Length: 105 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> > #5-6, 75th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
> >
> > This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics.. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.
> >
> > Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.
> >
> > Length: 175 pages
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN : B0836F1YF6
> > Publication date : December 26, 2019
> > Language : English
> > File size : 741 KB
> > Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > Screen Reader : Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > Print length : 175 pages
> > Lending : Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-7, 89th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
> >
> > Last revision was 6Feb2021.
> > Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.
> >
> > Length: 110 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #5-8, 90th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
> >
> > Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.
> >
> > Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.
> >
> > My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.
> >
> > So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.
> >
> > Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.
> >
> > Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
> > Length: 296 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #13 in General Geometry
> > ◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-8, 160th published book
> >
> > MATHOPEDIA-- List of 80 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 28Apr2022. And this is AP's 160th book of Science.
> > Preface:
> > A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.
> > The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.
> > The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.
> > Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.
> > I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1149 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Ben Green, Roger Penrose, Thomas Hales, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Edward Witten, John Baez, Alan H. Guth, Michael E. Brown, Konstantin Batygin, Ben Bullock, Larry Harson, Mark Barton, far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

Why McGinn, they failed on all these 4 issues key to physics, logic, math?

1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
..
..
little fishes
..
..
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
..
..
Edward Witten
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.

Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand,Ruth Charney, 25May Gabriel spams, Jill Pipher, Lisa Randall, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Ben Green, Roger Penrose, Thomas Hales, Brian Greene, Edward Witten, John Baez, Alan H. Guth, Michael E. Brown, Konstantin Batygin, Ben Bullock, Larry Harson, Mark Barton, far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

Why John Gabriel insane spammer, they failed on all these 4 issues key to physics, logic, math?

1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

Edward Witten
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)

Andrea Ghez,Lisa Randall,Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, Jesse Alt,Charlotte Brennan,Sonja Currie why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank John Gabriel needs medication, not a Internet account.
> > 
> > 
> > > >
> > > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > 2> 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)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > Preface:
> > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > >
> > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > Language: English
> > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > > > 

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > Physics dept
> > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > John Carter
> > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > Darell Comins
> > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > Arthur Every
> > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > >
> > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > >
> > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > Florian Luca
> > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> 6> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium

Betsie Jonck,Andrea Ghez,Lisa Randall,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, Jesse Alt,Charlotte Brennan,Sonja Currie why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Betsie, is all of South Africa a math failure like John Gabriel who never did a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is Gabriel some special kook form of failure??? Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank John Gabriel needs medication, not a Internet account.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > >
> > > > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > 2> 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)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > > Preface:
> > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > Language: English
> > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > > > > 

> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > John Carter
> > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > >
> > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > 6> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

Betsie Jonck,Andrea Ghez,Lisa Randall,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, Jesse Alt,Charlotte Brennan,Sonja Currie why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Betsie, is John Gabriel some special kook failure of math with never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?

Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank John Gabriel needs medication, not a Internet account.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > >
> > > > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > 2> 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)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > > Preface:
> > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > Language: English
> > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > > > > 

> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > John Carter
> > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > >
> > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > 6> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

Andrew Wiles could never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of calculus so noone expects the math failure John Gabriel to do such a proof. Betsie Jonck,Andrea Ghez,Lisa Randall,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, Jesse Alt,Charlotte Brennan,Sonja Currie why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Betsie, is John Gabriel some special kook failure of math with never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
> Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank John Gabriel needs medication, not a Internet account.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > >
> > > > > 2> 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)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > > > Preface:
> > > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > > Language: English
> > > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > > > > > 

> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > > John Carter
> > > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > > >
> > > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > 6> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

2Joao Rodrigues, Betsie Jonck,Jesse Alt,Margaret Archibald, Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

John Gabriel spam Eram semper
unread,
12/13/2022 - New visitors to sci.math: Neither Newton nor Leibniz ever produced any proof that demonstrated they understood the Fundamental Theorem Of Calculus
10:38 AM

Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
12/13/2022 - New visitors to sci.math: The fucking morons known as math professors and teachers of mathematics had no clue about the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
9:59 AM

Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
unread,
12/13/2022 - New visitors to sci.math: Mainstream calculus is a fraudulent formulation because neither Newton nor Leibniz knew what they were doing...
9:56 AM


> > >
> > > 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)
> > >
> > >
> > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > Preface:
> > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > >
> > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > >
> > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > >
> > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > Language: English
> > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > Lending: Enabled
> > > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > > 

> > >
> > >
> > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > Physics dept
> > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > John Carter
> > > Andrew Chen
> > > Darell Comins
> > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > Arthur Every
> > > Andrew Forbes
> > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > Robert Joubert
> > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > Nukri Komin
> > > Bruce Mellado
> > > Deena Naidoo
> > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > Alex Quandt
> > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > >
> > >
> > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > >
> > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > Dr. D Day
> > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > Dr. D Singh
> > >
> > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > Betsie Jonck
> > > Jesse Alt
> > > Margaret Archibald
> > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > Sonja Currie
> > > Alexander Davison
> > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > Yorick Hardy
> > > Meira Hockman
> > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > Abdul Kara
> > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > Christopher Kriel
> > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > Florian Luca
> > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > Carminda Mennen
> > > Manfred Moller
> > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > Augustine Munagi
> > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > Bruce Watson
> > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > >
> > >
> > > 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

3- Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

WM
, …
Eram semper recta (John Gabriel spammer)
503
unread,
Question on Hilbert's Hotel.
On Saturday, 7 January 2023 at 00:15:42 UTC+2, William wrote: > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:03
12:39 AM


> > > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > 2> 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)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > Preface:
> > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > >
> > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > Language: English
> > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > > > 

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > Physics dept
> > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > John Carter
> > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > Darell Comins
> > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > Arthur Every
> > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > >
> > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > >
> > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > Florian Luca
> > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium

3-Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

Eram semper recta (John Gabriel)
, …
Bubba Pagano
3 unread,
24 February 2023: New visitors to sci.math: What they taught you at school and university is a bunch of rubbish.
3:32 PM


> > > >
> > > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > 2> 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)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > Preface:
> > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > >
> > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > Language: English
> > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > > > 

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > Physics dept
> > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > John Carter
> > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > Darell Comins
> > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > Arthur Every
> > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > >
> > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > >
> > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > Florian Luca
> > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 1:35:36 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 3-Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
>
>
> Eram semper recta (John Gabriel)
> , …
> Bubba Pagano
> 3
> unread,
> 24 February 2023: New visitors to sci.math: What they taught you at school and university is a bunch of rubbish.
> 3:32 PM
> 
>
> > > > >
> > > > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > 2> 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)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > > Preface:
> > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > Language: English
> > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > > > > 

> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > John Carter
> > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > >
> > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

4-Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

John Gabriel spamming sci.math
Eram semper recta wrote
unread,
2 May 2023: New visitors to sci.math: Mainstream math professors and teachers are incorrigible morons - even ChatGPT is smarter than them.
10:19 AM


> Eram semper recta (John Gabriel)
> , …
> Bubba Pagano
> 3
> unread,
> 24 February 2023: New visitors to sci.math: What they taught you at school and university is a bunch of rubbish.
> 3:32 PM
> 
>
> > > > >
> > > > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > 2> 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)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > > Preface:
> > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > Language: English
> > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > > > > 

> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > John Carter
> > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > >
> > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium