Fritz Feldhase,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.

> > > 
> > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > >
> > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > >
> > > > > My 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
> > > > >
> > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to
> > > > >
> > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > >
> > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > >
> > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > >
> > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > Gottingen Univ math
> > >
> > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > >
> > > Eternal-September.org
> > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > Berliner Strasse
> > > Bad Homburg
> > >
> > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > >
> > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > >
> > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > Horst Stocker
> > > Gerd Binnig
> > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > Peter Grunberg
> > >
> > > math
> > > Alex Kuronya
> > > Martin Moller
> > > Jakob Stix
> > > Annette Werner
> > > Andreas Bernig
> > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > Hans Crauel
> > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > Thomas Mettler
> > > Tobias Weth
> > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > Raman Sanyal
> > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > Yury Person
> > >
> > >
> > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

RossFinlayson,Fritz Feldhase,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> 
> > > > 
> > > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers.. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > >
> > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > >
> > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > >
> > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > Bad Homburg
> > > >
> > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > >
> > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > >
> > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > >
> > > > math
> > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > Martin Moller
> > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > Annette Werner
> > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > Yury Person
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

Ben Bacarisse,cheese,Fritz Feldhase,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > >
> > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > >
> > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > >
> > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > >
> > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > >
> > > > > math
> > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > Yury Person
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

siren Fritz Feldhase,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> 
> > > > 
> > > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers.. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > >
> > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > >
> > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > >
> > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > Bad Homburg
> > > >
> > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > >
> > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > >
> > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > >
> > > > math
> > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > Martin Moller
> > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > Annette Werner
> > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > Yury Person
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

Germany's Gottingen with math failure W.Muck the Puck that China has 12,000 ICBMs-- Muck the Puck, where are they hiding those ICBMs? On the border with North Korea and NK tests the Chinese missiles monthly??
2 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
8:53 PM (17 minutes ago)



to

WM's three proofs of dark number 12,000.

Are these your three proofs Muck the Puck.
1) Terra cotta clay army by first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang was 12,000
2) Lao Tse said Russia has 6,000, America has 6,000, we must have 12,000 for mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power.
3) Regain back Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok stolen by Russia.

Wolfgang Mueckenheim, Germany's failed scientist with his 30 year mindless tirade on dark numbers. Which means that Germany has no respect for psychiatry and WM's medication.
unread,
Three proofs of dark numbers
On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 3:30:06 PM UTC+2, WM wrote: > Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Sonntag,
8:36 PM

Mostowski Collapse's profile photo
Mostowski Collapse
,
Dan Christensen
2
unread,
The Exponentiation Axiom --> An Inconsistency in DC Proof
On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:03:42 PM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) wrote: > Dear
7:49 PM

WM's profile photo
WM
, …
Gus Gassmann
58
unread,
Contraditions of dark numbers
On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 10:50:27 UTC-3, WM wrote: > Gus Gassmann schrieb am Sonntag, 11.
7:41 PM

wij's profile photo
wij
, …
timba...@gmail.com
20
unread,
Discrete math. view of number and real number.

siren Fritz Feldhase,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > >
> > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > >
> > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > >
> > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > >
> > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > >
> > > > > math
> > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > Yury Person
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

Sergio siren of Muck the Puke, Germany's Gottingen with math failure W.Muck the Puck that China has 12,000 ICBMs-- Muck the Puck, where are they hiding those ICBMs? On the border with North Korea and NK tests the Chinese missiles monthly??
> 2 views
> Subscribe
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> 8:53 PM (17 minutes ago)
> 
> 
> 
> to
>
> WM's three proofs of dark number 12,000.
>
> Are these your three proofs Muck the Puck.
> 1) Terra cotta clay army by first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang was 12,000
> 2) Lao Tse said Russia has 6,000, America has 6,000, we must have 12,000 for mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power.
> 3) Regain back Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok stolen by Russia.
>
> Wolfgang Mueckenheim, Germany's failed scientist with his 30 year mindless tirade on dark numbers. Which means that Germany has no respect for psychiatry and WM's medication.
> unread,
> Three proofs of dark numbers
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 3:30:06 PM UTC+2, WM wrote: > Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Sonntag,
> 8:36 PM
> 
> Mostowski Collapse's profile photo
> Mostowski Collapse
> ,
> Dan Christensen
> 2
> unread,
> The Exponentiation Axiom --> An Inconsistency in DC Proof
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:03:42 PM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) wrote: > Dear
> 7:49 PM
> 
> WM's profile photo
> WM
> , …
> Gus Gassmann
> 58
> unread,
> Contraditions of dark numbers
> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 10:50:27 UTC-3, WM wrote: > Gus Gassmann schrieb am Sonntag, 11.
> 7:41 PM
> 
> wij's profile photo
> wij
> , …
> timba...@gmail.com
> 20
> unread,
> Discrete math. view of number and real number.
> siren Fritz Feldhase,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My 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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > math
> > > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > > Yury Person
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

måndag 12 september 2022 kl. 00:52:09 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Please let me suck your cock WM

Why are you this gross man?

Germany's endless Muck the Puke failure in math with his dark numbers and now one of his harpy sirens wants more than just spam every day of the year for as long as Muck the Puke is plugged in.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:24:59 AM UTC-5, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> Please let me suck your cock WM

More sirens-- Fritz Feldhase,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.

> > > 
> > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > >
> > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > >
> > > > > My 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
> > > > >
> > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to
> > > > >
> > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > >
> > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > >
> > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > >
> > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > Gottingen Univ math
> > >
> > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > >
> > > Eternal-September.org
> > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > Berliner Strasse
> > > Bad Homburg
> > >
> > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > >
> > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > >
> > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > Horst Stocker
> > > Gerd Binnig
> > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > Peter Grunberg
> > >
> > > math
> > > Alex Kuronya
> > > Martin Moller
> > > Jakob Stix
> > > Annette Werner
> > > Andreas Bernig
> > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > Hans Crauel
> > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > Thomas Mettler
> > > Tobias Weth
> > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > Raman Sanyal
> > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > Yury Person
> > >
> > >
> > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

tisdag 13 september 2022 kl. 08:39:43 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Germany's endless Muck the Puke failure in math with his dark numbers and now one of his harpy sirens wants more than just spam every day of the year for as long as Muck the Puke is plugged in.
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:24:59 AM UTC-5, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Please let me suck your cock WM
> Oh yeah give me his cock!

You are hilariously predictable. Why do you always delete your stuff and let yourself be painted this way?

TheRafters,WM Muck the Puke,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.

> > > > 
> > > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers.. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > >
> > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > >
> > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > >
> > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > Bad Homburg
> > > >
> > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > >
> > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > >
> > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > >
> > > > math
> > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > Martin Moller
> > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > Annette Werner
> > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > Yury Person
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

Fritz Feldhase,WM Muck the Puke,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > >
> > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > >
> > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > >
> > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > >
> > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > >
> > > > > math
> > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > Yury Person
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

Metin Tolan, Annalena Baerbock,Fritz Feldhase,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.

Re: -Muck the Puke WM & Gottingen and the whole of Germany cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval never ellipse, nor can anyone there do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- all they seem to do is "dark numbers bullshit"
2:59 PM

William's profile photo
William
, …
FromTheRafters
19
unread,
No "First" init fraction
On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:14:01 PM UTC-3, FromTheRafters wrote: > Fritz Feldhase expressed
2:52 PM


zelos...@gmail.com's profile photo
zelos...@gmail.com
, …

45
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
2:48 PM

William's profile photo
William
, …
Jim Burns
144
WM Logic
On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
2:35 PM


> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My 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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > math
> > > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > > Yury Person
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

2-Metin Tolan, Annalena Baerbock,Fritz Feldhase,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
>


William's profile photo
William
, …
Chris M. Thomasson
237
unread,
WM Logic
On 6/8/2023 3:29 PM, FromTheRafters wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson used his keyboard to write : >
5:31 PM

Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
Chris M. Thomasson
, …

11
unread,
Re: Chris claims Sarmat RS-28 is on 8-bit computer-- Chris does that mean a Sarmat can land on Europa and fly back to Earth?
5:18 PM

Jan's profile photo
Jan
, …

22
Re: Jan Burse says ETH is a wheelchair Walter Thurnherr, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg //no picture diagram of Calculus proof// still believing proton is 938MeV electron .5MeV when they are 840MeV, 105MeV
5:01 PM

Mostowski Collapse's profile photo
Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse)
, …
Dan Christensen
37
unread,
Is DC Proof a bee logic or a spider logic?
Second order logic to first order logic (FOL) translation is rather trivial.. The language of monadic
4:54 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …

20
Re: Proof of Kepler Packing//Jan Burse-Alzheimer faggot//ETH Zurich, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, looking at it
4:52 PM


(snipped)
> Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
> Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
> 2:48 PM
> 
> William's profile photo
> William
> , …
> Jim Burns
> 144
> WM Logic
> On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
> 2:35 PM
> 
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My 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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers.. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > math
> > > > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > > > Yury Person
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

Jan Burse,Metin Tolan, Annalena Baerbock,Fritz Feldhase,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.

Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse)
Dan Christensen
39
unread,
Is DC Proof a bee logic or a spider logic?
What is second order Peano? Well its the same induction schema as in first order Peano, only for the
3:13 PM

mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
unread,
I still remember the mathematical chair
He taught that numbers are eternal. Really they are just the names of quantities and the quantities
3:06 PM

Pentcho Valev's profile photo
Pentcho Valev
, …

41
Einstein's Sins
=Moscow▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂Beijing mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Beijing
3:05 PM

Jan's profile photo
Jan
, …

23
Re: Jan Burse says ETH is a wheelchair Walter Thurnherr, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg //no picture diagram of Calculus proof// still believing proton is 938MeV electron .5MeV when they are 840MeV, 105MeV
3:02 PM

> 
> Dan Christensen's profile photo
> Dan Christensen
> , …
>
> 20
> Re: Proof of Kepler Packing//Jan Burse-Alzheimer faggot//ETH Zurich, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, looking at it
> 4:52 PM
> 
>
> (snipped)
> > Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
> > Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
> > 2:48 PM
> > 
> > William's profile photo
> > William
> > , …
> > Jim Burns
> > 144
> > WM Logic
> > On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
> > 2:35 PM
> > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My 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
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > math
> > > > > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > > > > Yury Person
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

Jan Burse,Metin Tolan, Annalena Baerbock,Fritz Feldhase,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.

Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse)
Dan Christensen
39
unread,
Is DC Proof a bee logic or a spider logic?
What is second order Peano? Well its the same induction schema as in first order Peano, only for the
3:13 PM

mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
unread,
I still remember the mathematical chair
He taught that numbers are eternal. Really they are just the names of quantities and the quantities
3:06 PM

Pentcho Valev's profile photo
Pentcho Valev
, …

41
Einstein's Sins
=Moscow▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂Beijing mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Beijing
3:05 PM

Jan's profile photo
Jan
, …

23
Re: Jan Burse says ETH is a wheelchair Walter Thurnherr, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg //no picture diagram of Calculus proof// still believing proton is 938MeV electron .5MeV when they are 840MeV, 105MeV
3:02 PM


> 
> Dan Christensen's profile photo
> Dan Christensen
> , …
>
> 20
> Re: Proof of Kepler Packing//Jan Burse-Alzheimer faggot//ETH Zurich, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, looking at it
> 4:52 PM
> 
>
> (snipped)
> > Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
> > Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
> > 2:48 PM
> > 
> > William's profile photo
> > William
> > , …
> > Jim Burns
> > 144
> > WM Logic
> > On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
> > 2:35 PM
> > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My 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
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > math
> > > > > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > > > > Yury Person
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

Rafters,Metin Tolan, Annalena Baerbock,Fritz Feldhase,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci..math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist..

William's profile photo
William
, …
FromTheRafters
352
unread,
WM Logic
WM brought next idea : > FromTheRafters schrieb am Sonntag, 18. Juni 2023 um 18:04:07 UTC+2: >
11:32 AM


> Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse)
> Dan Christensen
> 39
> unread,
> Is DC Proof a bee logic or a spider logic?
> What is second order Peano? Well its the same induction schema as in first order Peano, only for the
> 3:13 PM
> 
> mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
> mitchr...@gmail.com
> unread,
> I still remember the mathematical chair
> He taught that numbers are eternal. Really they are just the names of quantities and the quantities
> 3:06 PM
> 
> Pentcho Valev's profile photo
> Pentcho Valev
> , …
>
> 41
> Einstein's Sins
> =Moscow▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂Beijing mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Beijing
> 3:05 PM
> 
> Jan's profile photo
> Jan
> , …
> 23
> Re: Jan Burse says ETH is a wheelchair Walter Thurnherr, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg //no picture diagram of Calculus proof// still believing proton is 938MeV electron .5MeV when they are 840MeV, 105MeV
> 3:02 PM
> 
>
>
> > 
> > Dan Christensen's profile photo
> > Dan Christensen
> > , …
> >
> > 20
> > Re: Proof of Kepler Packing//Jan Burse-Alzheimer faggot//ETH Zurich, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, looking at it
> > 4:52 PM
> > 
> >
> > (snipped)
> > > Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
> > > Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
> > > 2:48 PM
> > > 
> > > William's profile photo
> > > William
> > > , …
> > > Jim Burns
> > > 144
> > > WM Logic
> > > On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
> > > 2:35 PM
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My 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
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > #12-2, 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)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > math
> > > > > > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > > > > > Yury Person
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius