Dr Tao universal crank, says Todd B Smith in Example Problems-- the paid for Google Search character assassinator for hire Todd B Smith.

Why Todd, is Dr. Tao just a crank? Is it because he cannot understand slant cut in cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is it because Dr. Tao is too dumb in math to realize calculus is geometry, therefore the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires a geometry proof. Not a mindless limit analysis hornswaggle. Nor can he understand Boole Logic is full of error with their AND truth table.

Todd B. Smith, why is Tao, Contini, Maksimovich, Pezevenk and Ross universal cranks? Is it because they fail to grasp Boole got AND truth table wrong with TFFF when it is really TTTF to avoid 2 OR 1 = 3??? Are they all that stupid, Todd??
Re: 2- The four lunatics of reddit/math, Terry Tao, Scott Contini, Sam Maksimovich, Mr. Pezevenk, none can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, too stupid to even know what that is.
by ross.pro...@gmx.com May 30, 2021, 1:56:52 PM

#11-1, 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

#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)

Example Problems
http://www.exampleproblems.com › wiki › index.php
http://www.exampleproblems.com › wiki › index.php

Archimedes Plutonium (born July 5, 1950) is primarily noted for his varied and eccentric contributions to Usenet. Plutonium repeatedly claimed to be the greatest ...

Todd B Smith by wicked-wikki your free wicked encyclopedia// although he is almost universally regarded as a mRNA poofster fuckdog and Todd B Smith as a adjuvant poofster fuckdog.

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 6:59:05 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> brain farto, do we have some primes:

...although he is almost universally regarded as a mRNA poofster fuckdog and Todd B Smith as a adjuvant poofster fuckdog.

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 7:14:02 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> brain farto claims 22699 is a Sierpiński number.
>

wiki, wiki Revision history of
www.exampleproblems dot com wiki
(cur | prev) 03:21, 13 March 2021 Todd (talk | contribs ... (10,274 bytes)
ep@toddbsmith dot com

Todd B Smith in wicked-wikki your free wicked encyclopedia// although he is almost universally regarded as a mRNA poofster fuckdog and Todd B Smith as a adjuvant poofster fuckdog.

Example Problems from www.exampleproblems dot com
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Todd B Smith (born July 13, 1967) is primarily noted for his varied and eccentric contributions to Usenet. Given Todd's birth may explain his stalking and character assassinator in Google Search Engine in sci.math and sci.physics for he was not born in the normal manner but shitted out of the arse of his mother, while she was undergoing a lobotomy in Boston. And to this very day, Todd is never seen giving a kind word to anybody or anything, especially his mother. Having been shitted out of the arse of your mother will do that to you. Todd repeatedly claimed to be the greatest living Comic, and referred to himself at least once as "The AnalButtFuckManure of late night comedy"[1], although he is almost universally regarded as a mRNA poofster fuckdog and Todd B Smith as a adjuvant poofster fuckdog. Much to the disdain and annoyance of every lady walking and sitting on benches in the public park benches with a leg exposed. One of Todd's seminal and most memorable Google Search character assassination in July, 2020 [2] references to the South Korean Prime Minister over the torture of his country-- moon bears. Bears that are lifelong caged and tortured for their bile extraction. In one of Todd B Smith's posts, he suggests sending in a platoon of Marines to free the moon bears. (Needs confirmation by Todd B. Smith dot com)

|| Criminal and eccentric personalities || Unusual Personalities || Twilight Zone Sickfucks ||

Another report of Todd B. Smith is in answer to Dr. Tao of why he cannot admit to his mistakes that a ellipse is not a conic cut of a single cone for that is a oval. And why Dr. Tao fails to ever give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, like what the King of Science Archimedes Plutonium, did in 2015, and AP published the world's first geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 12:46:20 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🦤 of Math and 🃠 of Physics Archimedes "math hater" Plutonium
> <plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:
>
> > Yes, I need to write a new chapter as a 2022, clarification on my
> 2016 proof of Collatz. When I cannot remember the mechanism of the
> proof, some 6 years later, means I need to add more clarity.
> >
> > Dan Joyce being opaque about the Collatz conjecture. Probably because
> Dan does not want to give credit to AP for proving Collatz in 2016.
>
> AP gets no credit for proving the Collatz conjecture in 2016 because AP
> never proved the Collatz conjecture in 2016.
>
> If you want credit for proving something, you had better actually prove it!
>
> > Now many insane babbling critics will say I altered the statement of
> Collatz.
>
> Of course you altered the Collatz conjecture. By having a set of 4
> numbers and selecting the one that is divisible by 8, it is no longer
> the Collatz conjecture. Since you invented this new conjecture, why not
> name it for yourself, say the Plutonium Conjecture or the Arky
> Conjecture. It is not the Collatz conjecture because that is completely
> different.
>
> > Yes, I altered a fog statement by illogical degenerates in
> mathematics to a statement that bears the mechanism of Collatz.
>
> No, you altered a statement and made it an entirely different problem.
> Call it just about anything you want, except the Collatz conjecture.
>
> > There can never exist a proof of Old Original Collatz,
>
> That's how it is interesting, it is unknown if there is a proof or
> disproof of the Collatz conjecture possible.
>
> > for it is a cloudy mess of why the slide occurs.
>
> No, it is perfectly clear. Multiply by 3 and add 1 if odd, divide by 2
> if even. Period.
>
>
> > The slide occurs from the structure of even numbers. The smallest set
> of even numbers is 2, 4, 6, 8 and it is the 8 that is divisible by 2 in
> four times. It is the mandatory picking of the largest even number in
> the 4 consecutive evens that proves Collatz.
>
> No, it is not part of Collatz. Maybe part of the Arky conjecture, or
> whatever you want to call YOUR conjecture, but the Collatz conjecture is
> not that.
> >
> > For the fools that say AP proved something different from Collatz.
> No, AP only showed that Old Collatz was not a intelligent statement.
>
> It is perfectly intelligent. The rules are perfectly clear and intelligent.
>
> > And I can dream up millions of statements that may look like some
> math statement but is just a garbled mess, never provable.
>
> Like most of your "proofs"!!