Is Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, Jim Holt, more of propagandists like Dan Christensen than logicians? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > You may be giving him too much credit here. Judging by his bizarre antics here, he has given up obtaining any kind of positive recognition.
> >
> > Dan

Dan are they failures of science and logic like you because they are deaf, dumb and silent on all 4 of these issues.

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.

>
> Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//
>
> Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
> Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
> Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
> Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
> Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
> Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler,
> Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy,
> David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz,
> Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman,
> Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
> Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods
>
> Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.
>
> Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education
>
> George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap,
> Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
> Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,
> David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
> Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,

Dan Christensen's 8-4-22 post "students beware" that Cornell Univ is a math shithead school with ellipse a slant cut in cone when it never is-- that is the Oval. Suspend all Fields and Abel awards along with suspend Nobel prizes in Physics, until corrupt mathematicians Ruth Charney,Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, and many others can accept and admit the truth Slant cut in cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Why, even High School Students can prove the slant cut is a Oval, never the ellipse, yet the Nobel prizes are given to idiots of science who are dumber than our High School students.

Corrupt morons of math Ruth Charney,Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, cannot understand cone has one axis of symmetry, as does Oval, but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry such as a cylinder to provide for a slant cut to be a ellipse. In this ugly situation of mathematics taught in schools, the idiots of Old Math are dumber than the students they teach. For any smart student in High School can show the idiots Ruth Charney,Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS that ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry impossible to get from any cone cut.

3rd published book

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

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

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

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

Last revision was 14May2022. 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 the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 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 ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
 
 
                E
               __
        .-'              `-.
      .'                    `.
    /                         \
   ;                           ;
  | G          c              | H
   ;                           ;
    \                         /
     `.                     .'
        `-.    _____  .-'
                  F
 

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

|    |
|    |
|    |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF

But the side view of the cone is

     /\E
    /c \
F /     \

The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.

  The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
  Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
  the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
  the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
  cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
  symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.
 
  Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
  point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
  and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
  cylinder
 
  |                              |
  |                              | E
  |                              |
  |                              |
  |x            c              |x
  |                              |
  |                              |
  |                              |
  |F                            |
  |                              |
  |                              |
  |                              |
 
 

So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry.

But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of EF. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry.

  So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
  cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
  base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
  that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
  the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
  these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
  axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED
 
 
 
  Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
 
  ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::
 
 
           A
        ,'"   "`.
     /            \
  C|     c       | D
   \               /
      ` . ___ .'
           B
 
  The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
  center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
  a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
  long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
  What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
  ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
  symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
  of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
  diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
 
  Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
  center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
  only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
  between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
  between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
  slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
  the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
  at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
  cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
  case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
  are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
  not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
  leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
 
       /  \A
   x/  c \x
  B/       \
 
  Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
  circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.