Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Gottingen University Germany needs a 1st page Counterpoint in his Google Search list instead of 100% sugar coated gloss of a failed physics who cannot ask a simple question. The Atom's true electron--is it the muon stuck

Wolfgang Mueckenheim needs a 1st page Counterpoint in his Google Search list instead of 100% sugar coated gloss of a failed physicist who cannot ask a simple question. The Atom's true electron--is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole?

Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Gottingen Univ and Germany fail math miserably with their slant cut in cone a ellipse when in truth that is a oval, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and their inability to ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for Germany seems to only fail fail fail fail in math and physics. They need a 1st page Counterpoint in his Google Search list instead of 100% sugar coated gloss of a failed physicist who cannot ask a simple question. Since AP has 3 counterpoints on his 1st page, no reason that Saul should have at least 1.

Do physicists Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish David J. Thouless ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the DiracMonopole

Physics failures Sheldon Glashow,Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,Peter Higgs, ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole.

Can failed physicists with their mindless 0.5MeV particle traveling at 99% speed of light outside a 938MeV proton ever stay together, where AP says the true electron is the muon stuck INSIDE a proton torus of 840MeV doing the Faraday law-- do physicists Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane have to be failures all their life and never ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole.

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

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

Ben Bacarisse on stupidity of Germany math with slant cut of cone a ellipse when even 15 year olds can prove it is a oval

WM
, …
Ben Bacarisse
441
unread,
Three proofs of dark numbers
WM <askasker48@gmail.com> writes: (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches
6:35 PM

>
> Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Gottingen Univ and Germany fail math miserably with their slant cut in cone a ellipse when in truth that is a oval, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and their inability to ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for Germany seems to only fail fail fail fail in math and physics. They need a 1st page Counterpoint in his Google Search list instead of 100% sugar coated gloss of a failed physicist who cannot ask a simple question. Since AP has 3 counterpoints on his 1st page, no reason that Saul should have at least 1.
>
>
> Do physicists Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish David J. Thouless ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the DiracMonopole
>
>
> Physics failures Sheldon Glashow,Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,Peter Higgs, ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole.
>
> Can failed physicists with their mindless 0.5MeV particle traveling at 99% speed of light outside a 938MeV proton ever stay together, where AP says the true electron is the muon stuck INSIDE a proton torus of 840MeV doing the Faraday law-- do physicists Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane have to be failures all their life and never ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole.
>
>
> Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> Arthur B. McDonald
> Francois Englert
> Saul Perlmutter
> Brian P. Schmidt
> Adam G. Riess
> Makoto Kobayashi
> Toshihide Maskawa
> Yoichiro Nambu
> John C. Mather
> George F. Smoot
> Roy J. Glauber
> David J. Gross
> Hugh David Politzer
> Frank Wilczek
> Raymond Davis Jr.
> Masatoshi Koshiba
> Riccardo Giacconi
> Gerardus 't Hooft
> Martinus J.G. Veltman
> Jerome I. Friedman
> Henry W. Kendall
> Richard E. Taylor
> Carlo Rubbia
> Simon van der Meer
> William Alfred Fowler
> Kenneth G. Wilson
> James Watson Cronin
> Val Logsdon Fitch
> Sheldon Lee Glashow
> Steven Weinberg
> .
> .
> little fishes
> .
> .
> Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
>
> Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> more and more layers of error thinking physics
> .
> .
> John Baez
> Brian Greene
> Lisa Randall
> Alan H. Guth
> Michael E. Brown
> Konstantin Batygin
> Ben Bullock
> Larry Harson
> Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> Edward Witten

Sergi o on stupidity of Gottingen with their slant cut cone a ellipse and never ask the question whether muon or 0.5MeV particle is true electron
> Ben Bacarisse on stupidity of Germany math with slant cut of cone a ellipse when even 15 year olds can prove it is a oval
>
> WM
> , …
> Ben Bacarisse
> 441
> unread,
> Three proofs of dark numbers
> WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes: (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches
> 6:35 PM
> >
> > Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Gottingen Univ and Germany fail math miserably with their slant cut in cone a ellipse when in truth that is a oval, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and their inability to ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for Germany seems to only fail fail fail fail in math and physics. They need a 1st page Counterpoint in his Google Search list instead of 100% sugar coated gloss of a failed physicist who cannot ask a simple question. Since AP has 3 counterpoints on his 1st page, no reason that Saul should have at least 1.
> >
> >
> > Do physicists Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish David J. Thouless ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the DiracMonopole
> >
> >
> > Physics failures Sheldon Glashow,Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,Peter Higgs, ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> >
> > Can failed physicists with their mindless 0.5MeV particle traveling at 99% speed of light outside a 938MeV proton ever stay together, where AP says the true electron is the muon stuck INSIDE a proton torus of 840MeV doing the Faraday law-- do physicists Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane have to be failures all their life and never ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> >
> >
> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > Arthur B. McDonald
> > Francois Englert
> > Saul Perlmutter
> > Brian P. Schmidt
> > Adam G. Riess
> > Makoto Kobayashi
> > Toshihide Maskawa
> > Yoichiro Nambu
> > John C. Mather
> > George F. Smoot
> > Roy J. Glauber
> > David J. Gross
> > Hugh David Politzer
> > Frank Wilczek
> > Raymond Davis Jr.
> > Masatoshi Koshiba
> > Riccardo Giacconi
> > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > Martinus J.G. Veltman
> > Jerome I. Friedman
> > Henry W. Kendall
> > Richard E. Taylor
> > Carlo Rubbia
> > Simon van der Meer
> > William Alfred Fowler
> > Kenneth G. Wilson
> > James Watson Cronin
> > Val Logsdon Fitch
> > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > Steven Weinberg
> > .
> > .
> > little fishes
> > .
> > .
> > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> >
> > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > .
> > .
> > John Baez
> > Brian Greene
> > Lisa Randall
> > Alan H. Guth
> > Michael E. Brown
> > Konstantin Batygin
> > Ben Bullock
> > Larry Harson
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > Edward Witten

Sergi o,Gus Gassmann,Jens Niemeyer,Astrid Pundt ever able to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, ever able to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus??? No, no, no....
unread,
A new approach
On 9/22/2022 3:14 PM, WM wrote: > Sergi o schrieb am Donnerstag, 22. September 2022 um 20:39:06
8:57 PM

WM's profile photo
WM
, …
Sergi o
458
unread,
Three proofs of dark numbers
On 9/22/2022 6:25 PM, Gus Gassmann wrote: > On Thursday, 22 September 2022 at 13:21:38 UTC-3, JVR
8:37 PM


> Sergi o on stupidity of Gottingen with their slant cut cone a ellipse and never ask the question whether muon or 0.5MeV particle is true electron
> > Ben Bacarisse on stupidity of Germany math with slant cut of cone a ellipse when even 15 year olds can prove it is a oval
> >
> > WM
> > , …
> > Ben Bacarisse
> > 441
> > unread,
> > Three proofs of dark numbers
> > WM <askas...@gmail.com> writes: (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches
> > 6:35 PM
> > >
> > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Gottingen Univ and Germany fail math miserably with their slant cut in cone a ellipse when in truth that is a oval, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and their inability to ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for Germany seems to only fail fail fail fail in math and physics. They need a 1st page Counterpoint in his Google Search list instead of 100% sugar coated gloss of a failed physicist who cannot ask a simple question. Since AP has 3 counterpoints on his 1st page, no reason that Saul should have at least 1.
> > >

Gus Gassmann,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.

Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,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.

> > > > >
> > > > > 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

torsdag 22 september 2022 kl. 00:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Wolfgang Mueckenheim please fuck me in the ass!
> AP

Dude, whats wrong with you?

Sergi o,Fritz Feldhase,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.

Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,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.

> > > > >
> > > > > 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

Ross A.Finlayson,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.
>
> Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
>
> siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,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.
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
>
> 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)

Fritz Felhase,Hans Crauel,Thomas Gerstner, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.
> >
> > Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> >
> > siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,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.
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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
> >
> > 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)

TheRafters,Hans Crauel,Thomas Gerstner, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.

FromTheRafters too dumb to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, so he spams sci.math each and every day.

> > >
> > > Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > >
> > > siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,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.
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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
> > >
> > > 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)

William,Metin Tolan,Hans Crauel,Thomas Gerstner, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse. None can ever do a geometry proof of FTC. So stupid in logic they accept 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction in the dumbarse Boole logic where Boole mixed up wrongfully the truth table of AND as TFFF with that of OR, for the true truth table of AND is TTTF, yet Gottingen has Metin Tolan teach this garbage to young students.
>
> FromTheRafters too dumb to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, so he spams sci.math each and every day.
> > > >
> > > > Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > >
> > > > siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,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.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > 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)

Gus Gassmann,Metin Tolan,Hans Crauel,Thomas Gerstner, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse. None can ever do a geometry proof of FTC. So stupid in logic they accept 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction in the dumbarse Boole logic where Boole mixed up wrongfully the truth table of AND as TFFF with that of OR, for the true truth table of AND is TTTF, yet Gottingen has Metin Tolan teach this garbage to young students.
> >
> > FromTheRafters too dumb to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, so he spams sci.math each and every day.
> > > > >
> > > > > Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > >
> > > > > siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,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.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > > 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)

fredag 23 september 2022 kl. 07:26:46 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Sergi o,Fritz Feldhase,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.
>
> Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
>
> siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,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.
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
>
> 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)
why are you so gay?

Anders Hagfeldt of Uppsala Univ Sweden, do they teach manners at your University? The reason I ask is that Zelos Malum has none, and in dire need of manners for his posts are mostly obscene sex with no math content.

Why, the waif does not even know a slant cut in cone is a Oval, never ellipse.

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)

fredag 30 september 2022 kl. 08:38:46 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Anders Hagfeldt of Uppsala Univ Sweden, do they teach manners at your University? The reason I ask is that Zelos Malum has none, and in dire need of manners for his posts are mostly obscene sex with no math content.
>
> Why, the waif does not even know a slant cut in cone is a Oval, never ellipse.
>
> 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)
Why do I need manner when YOU are the one spamming these obscene requests!

Germany's analfuckdog-never a geometry proof of Calculus. An idiot of geometry-- cannot even acknowledge slant cut of cylinder is ellipse but not of cone for that is a Oval. The mindless fuckdog of Germany with his 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction, because WM did not have enough time to pull his head out of his arsehole and realize Boole made a mistake by confusing AND with OR because the true truth table of AND is TTTF not Boole's TFFF. Idiots like WM put Germany backwards in knowledge and education by 200 years. Germany's caveman math and caveman physics.

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)

Jim Burns and WM-Germany's analfuckdog-never a geometry proof of Calculus. An idiot of geometry-- cannot even acknowledge slant cut of cylinder is ellipse but not of cone for that is a Oval. The mindless fuckdog of Germany with his 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction, because WM did not have enough time to pull his head out of his arsehole and realize Boole made a mistake by confusing AND with OR because the true truth table of AND is TTTF not Boole's TFFF. Idiots like WM put Germany backwards in knowledge and education by 200 years. Germany's caveman math and caveman physics.
> 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)

💩 for 🧠 Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:

> Jim Burns and WM-Germany's analfuckdog-

ArchiePoo, now you want to fuck a dog anally? You are getting sicker and
sicker. First you want to fuck the queen's corpse, then fuck a lion, now
a dog anally, plus you want to do homosexual acts with Mueckenheim and
others?

Plutonium, you're Sick sick sick!!

And please take it to your local gay bar, or Grindr or something. Quit
trying to make these groups into a gay pickup joint!

Or is "analfuckdog" a new word you just invented? Please don't sic your
lawyer on me for repeating it here, like you did with the other word you
invented, but I can't repeat here.

-Kate Heinzelman, I can see where CIA agents are trained to stalk, but tell me, what benefit is there in Kibo's "wanting to fuck her corpse"?? That is highly illogical..

Kate in Kibo's upcoming Performance Evaluation of 30 entrees, will he be docked for posting that Kibo "wanting to fuck her corpse"??
Kibo on wanting to fuck her corpse/Kate Heinzelman, question, do you not think CIA is going overboard on stalking-- I mean 30 years for the insane Kibo Parry M??
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse

Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

CIA standardized Evaluation Reports::

Kate, is not a 90% maturity for Kibo Parry M. a bit high? Considering he posts that he wants to fuck dead corpses???

Kate, I can imagine you need escorts at CIA headquarters just to go to the canteen in case Kibo is lurking and stalking.

> Mehram Maleki (Clutterfreak) why is Dan too dumb to see, that if Truth table of AND were TTTF then AND would be addition in math, not subtraction? Why? Is it the visuals or the lack of brains??
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 10:37:51 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim


> > On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 11:08:20 PM UTC-5, hanson wrote:
> > > ______ A full week has passed and yet still not getting it...
> > > the Persian Neo-Nazi Mehram Maleki "ClutterFreak Incarnate"
> > > <Clu...@FakeAddress.com> still clutters & stutters after:
> > > [trim]
>
>
> > Clutterfreak writes:
> > Note:
> > - Stuff I've listed here are based on my past interactions with the named individuals in this forum.
> > - The "brain type"s I've used employs the definitions I described in my ACOB blog in this forum.
> >
> >
> > #1
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: ok
> > * Maturity: 90%
> > * IQ: above average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 6 autistic (scientists)
> > * True physics background: undergraduate
> > * Notes:
> > - Einstein nut
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: inactive since Mar 17, 2016
> >
> > #2
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: ok
> > * Maturity: 98% (max for human)
> > * IQ: above average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: normal
> > * True physics background: comprehensive
> > * Notes:
> > - could initiate threads
> > - had a physics tutorial zip file on web:
> >
> > * Status: inactive since Sep 8, 2014
> >
> >
> >
> > #3
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: limited and problematic
> > * Maturity: 65%
> > * IQ: below average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 2 autistic (major criminals)
> > * Notes:
> > - Couldn't initiate threads (only reacted to others' posts)
> > * Status: inactive since Mar 12, 2007
> >
> >
> > #4
> >
> > Visual representation:
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: ok
> > * Maturity: 98% (max for human)
> > * IQ: above average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 6 autistic (scientists)
> > * True physics background: comprehensive
> > * Notes:
> > - electrical engineer turned physicist
> > - built and used microtrons in 1950s and 60s:
> > * 4.5 MeV: (completed 1953 - cannot find an image of that)
> > * 29 MeV: (completed 1958)
> > - soon after CERN was operational began working there
> > - Couldn't initiate threads (only reacted to others' posts)
> > * Status: inactive since March 17, 2005
> >
> > #5
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: ok
> > * Maturity: 90%
> > * IQ: average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: normal
> > * True physics background: 1st semester college freshman
> > * Notes:
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: inactive since Aug 21, 2011
> >
> > #6
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: problematic
> > * Maturity: 80% (max for Aspergers)
> > * IQ: high (above 145)
> > * Brain type: type 5 autistic (Aspergers)
> > * True physics background: strong (self-taught) but not comprehensive
> > * Notes:
> > - click-jockey (preferred giving a link rather than the use of language to communicate)
> > - Couldn't initiate threads (only reacted to others' posts)
> > * the only thread I know that he initiated was his last ("river of shit") post as well
> > * Status: inactive since Nov 11, 2013
> >
> > #6
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: ok
> > * Maturity: 90%
> > * IQ: above average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 6 autistic (scientists)
> > * True physics background: comprehensive
> > * Notes:
> > - Couldn't initiate threads (only reacted to others' posts)
> > * Status: inactive since May 20, 2007
> >
> >
> > #8
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: ok
> > * Maturity: 90%
> > * IQ: above average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 6 autistic (scientists)
> > * True physics background: ok (self-taught)
> > * Notes:
> > - medical background
> > - hustled snake oil on the side
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: inactive since Jan 22, 2019
> >
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: limited
> > * Maturity: 85%
> > * IQ: average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: normal
> > * True physics background: one physics course in community college
> > * Notes:
> > - click-jockey (preferred giving a link rather than the use of language to communicate)
> > - may have had technical training in military or something.
> > - evidence nut
> > * "evidence nut": sit on your ass, ask others to show "evidence" to you (a web link!), see if everybody else around says "yay yay" or "nay nay"
> > - Couldn't initiate threads (only reacted to others' posts)
> > * Status: inactive since Jun 12, 2016
> >
> > #9
> >
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: limited
> > * Maturity: 85%
> > * IQ: average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: normal
> > * True physics background: physics examples in an introductory computer programming book
> > * Notes:
> > - Couldn't initiate threads (only reacted to others' posts)
> > * Status: inactive since Jan 19, 2018
> >
> >
> > #10
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: ok
> > * Maturity: 80%
> > * IQ: above average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: normal
> > * True physics background: college freshman
> > * Notes:
> > - had authored ebooks to hustle "Whodat" type readers
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: inactive since Nov 26, 2011
> >
> > #11
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: ok
> > * Maturity: 80%
> > * IQ: average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: normal
> > * True physics background: college freshman
> > * Notes:
> > - Einstein nut (was trying to write a bio on Einstein)
> > - believed that "Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge"
> > - gave his reason to leave this forum as, "psycopaths are still busily engaged in soiling this group", while not a single post from him actually had anything to do with physics
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: inactive since Mar 10, 2004
> >
> > #12
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: flawed
> > * Maturity: 55%
> > * IQ: below average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: Schizophrenic (missing and/or nonsensical brain allotments)
> > * True physics background: Omni magazine
> > * Notes:
> > - only talked to himself
> > - if same dude behind Rick123456 alias then:
> > * pedophile
> > * OCD
> > * multiple personality disorder
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: active under Rick123456 alias. inactive since Dec 30, 2011 under OsherD alias
> >
> >
> > #12
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: limited and problematic
> > * Maturity: 65%
> > * IQ: below average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 4 autistic (petty criminals)
> > * True physics background: The Oprah Winfrey Show
> > * Notes:
> > - thicko
> > - see "Whodat"
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: inactive since May 18, 2011
> >
> > #13
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: limited
> > * Maturity: 85%
> > * IQ: below average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 1 autistic (major depression, artists)
> > * True physics background: relativity books for the laymen
> > * Notes:
> > - Einstein nut
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: active
> >
> >
> > #14
> >
> > ≪ Physfitfreak ≫
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: ok
> > * Maturity: 80% (max for Aspergers)
> > * IQ: 134 (minimum - tests were conducted in a foreign language)
> > * Brain type: type 5 autistic (Aspergers)
> > * True physics background: ok
> > * Notes:
> > - uses sci.physics mainly as a censor-free blog tool
> > - can initiate threads
> > * Status: active
> >
> > #15
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: flawed
> > * Maturity: 35%
> > * IQ: below 70 (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: schizophrenic (missing and/or nonsensical brain allotments)
> > * True physics background: Annie Oakley tv show
> > * Notes:
> > - spoke English like an early AI project
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: inactive since Dec 19, 2019
> >
> > #16
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: limited
> > * Maturity: 80%
> > * IQ: average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 4 autistic (petty criminals)
> > * True physics background: high school
> > * Notes:
> > - smart aleck
> > - OCD
> > - nymshifter
> > - McGinn exposed his limits of understanding simple physics
> > - evidence nut
> > * "evidence nut": sit on your ass, ask others to show you "evidence" (a web link!), see if everybody else around says "yay yay" or "nay nay"
> > - Couldn't initiate threads (only reacted to others' posts)
> > * Status: active
> >
> > #17
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: flawed
> > * Maturity: 60%
> > * IQ: low (below 85)
> > * Brain type: schizophrenic (missing and/or nonsensical brain allotments)
> > * True physics background: high school freshman
> > * Notes:
> > - spammer
> > - OCD
> > - hustled ebooks he'd written for other schizos
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: active
> >
> > #18
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: flawed
> > * Maturity: 45%
> > * IQ: low (below 85)
> > * Brain type: schizophrenic (missing and/or nonsensical brain allotments)
> > * True physics background: Quran
> > * Notes:
> > - without meds would be heard on world news
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: active
> >
> > #19
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: flawed
> > * Maturity: 30%
> > * IQ: below 70 (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: schizophrenic (missing and/or nonsensical brain allotments)
> > * True physics background: popsicle labels
> > * Notes:
> > - spammer
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: active
> >
> > #20
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: flawed
> > * Maturity: 75%
> > * IQ: below average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 1 autistic (major depression, artists)
> > * True physics background: high school
> > * Notes:
> > - Hustled snake oil
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: active
> >
> > #21
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: limited
> > * Maturity: 80%
> > * IQ: average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 4 autistic (petty criminals)
> > * True physics background: high school and one physics course in college which he dropped before first exam
> > * Notes:
> > - Bonghead
> > - nymshifter
> > - click-jockey (preferred giving a link rather than the use of language to communicate)
> > - enjoyed playing "full of shit" games in this forum
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: active
> >
> > #22
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: limited
> > * Maturity: 80% (max for Aspergers)
> > * IQ: above average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 5 autistic (Aspergers)
> > * True physics background: ok
> > * Notes:
> > - exposed lack of physics understanding of many smart aleck "engineers" frequenting this forum
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: active
> >
> >
> > #23
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: limited
> > * Maturity: 80%
> > * IQ: above average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 6 autistic (scientists)
> > * True physics background: undergraduate
> > * Notes:
> > - Couldn't initiate threads (only reacted to others' posts)
> > * Status: active
> >
> > #24
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: flawed
> > * Maturity: 25%
> > * IQ: below 70 (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: schizophrenic (missing and/or nonsensical brain allotments)
> > * True physics background: med bottles' labels
> > * Notes:
> > - spammer
> > - OCD
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: active
> >
> >
> > #25
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: ok
> > * Maturity: 80% (max for Aspergers)
> > * IQ: 134 (mean value of 3 online IQ tests in span of past 20 years, all three between 130 and 140)
> > - if there were an online IQ test conducted in Persian language he would score higher, so the above IQ is the minimum
> > * Brain type: type 5 autistic (Aspergers)
> > * True physics background: ok
> > * Notes:
> > - used sci.physics mainly as a censor-free blog tool
> > - believed at least two different human species exist today:
> > 1- Modern Human (MH) comprising Jews, Arabs, Iranians, Indians, Chinese, American Natives, Hispanics
> > 2- Cro-Magnon Human (CH) comrising northern European transparent-skinned people
> > - believed CH is an earlier human species compared to MH, possessing inferior ACOB allotments, and fathered by Iranians and mothered by Neanderthal Europeans during past 40k - 24k years
> > - did not know anything about African Blacks
> > - believed major behavioral differences between individuals can be explained adequately enough just by consideration of brain's extent of wiring allotments to the three major brain centers: (see his ACOB blog)
> > 1- Analytical Compartments Of Brain (ACOB - prefrontal, temporal, prietal cortices)
> > 2- Fight Or Flight Compartments of brain (hypothalamus, autonomic system)
> > 3- Emotional Compartments of brain (Amygdala - fear, anger, love, grief, euphoria)
> > - believed humans left apes behind only as a result of two main factors: (see his ACOB blog)
> > 1- women cause evolutionary jumps (forward or backward in analytical thinking) at the time of choosing the fathers of their future children
> > 2- men give the good genes in earlier humans a chance to survive at the time of fucking the earlier human women.
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: inactive since 9/24/2022
> >
> > #26
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: limited and problematic
> > * Maturity: 70%
> > * IQ: below average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 1 autistic (major depression, artists)
> > * True physics background: high school
> > * Notes:
> > - Bonghead
> > - writes bad programs and refuses to correct their bugs when others point to them
> > - when his physics remark got corrected, he repeated his remark verbatim in response
> > - "semi-retired" in his 20s
> > - believed he was hated here and outside cyberspace both
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: active
> >
> > #28
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: ok
> > * Maturity: 75%
> > * IQ: average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: type 4 autistic (petty criminals)
> > * True physics background: comics magazines
> > * Notes:
> > - Einstein nut
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: active
> >
> > #29
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: flawed
> > * Maturity: 25%
> > * IQ: below 70 (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: schizophrenic (missing and/or nonsensical brain allotments)
> > * True physics background: sci.physics posts of "Whodat"
> > * Notes:
> > - hallucinating
> > - could initiate threads
> > * Status: active
> >
> > #30
> >
> >
> > Visual representation:
> >
> > Stats:
> > =====
> > * Deportment: ok
> > * Maturity: 90%
> > * IQ: above average (average being 100)
> > * Brain type: normal
> > * True physics background: community college
> > * Notes:
> > - could initiate threads

Michael Moroney wrote:

> 💩 for 🧠 Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
> <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
>
>> Jim Burns and WM-Germany's analfuckdog-
>
> ArchiePoo, now you want to fuck a dog anally? You are getting sicker and
> sicker. First you want to fuck the queen's corpse, then fuck a lion, now
> a dog anally, plus you want to do homosexual acts with Mueckenheim and
> others?

wonderful people, I love it so much. Made me 20 years younger already.
Spasiba. Why don't you have something like this in america, you
capitalists.

Putin speaks at concert to celebrate 'annexation' of Ukrainian regions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSNkv8b-mIQ

Russian National Anthem (HD) | Victory Day 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnxfdkbwHNs

In full: Russia holds pop concert to mark annexation of four Ukrainian
regions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKlC_oiFrd4

FromTheRafters, a boring endless siren for WM, keeping his spam in the first page of leader board for 2 decades now.

Is FromTheRafters MIT's Gilbert Strang with a nymnshift? Or is he from Princeton Univ with a name shift? Or Neither??? But his spamming behavior is predictable.

MIT math dept.

Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff, Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley, Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman, Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, George Lusztig, Arthur Mattuck, Davesh Maulik, Richard Melrose, Haynes Miller, William Minicozzi, Ankur Moitra, Elchanan Mossel, Tomasz Mrowka, James Munkres, Andrei Negut, Aaron Pixton, Bjorn Poonen, Alexander Postnikov, Philippe Rigollet, Rodolfo Rosales, Giulia Saccà, Gerald Sacks, Paul Seidel, Scott Sheffield, Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Gigliola Staffilani, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, Daniel Stroock, Goncalo Tabuada, Alar Toomre, David Vogan

President: L. Reif (electrical engineer)

MIT physics dept
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark, Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins, Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young

Princeton University Math dept

Michael Aizenman Professor

Zahra Aminzare Lecturer

Manjul Bhargava Professor

Nathaniel Bottman Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Nicolas Boumal Instructor

Jean Bourgain Visiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor
Mathematics

William Browder Professor Emeritus

Tristan Buckmaster Assistant Professor

Francesc Castella Instructor

Sun-Yung Alice Chang Professor

Otis Chodosh Veblen Research Instructor

Maria Chudnovsky Professor

Peter Constantin Professor of Mathematics and Director of PACM

John Conway Professor Emeritus

Mihalis Dafermos Professor

Gabriele Di Cerbo Assistant Professor

Hansheng Diao Instructor

Theodore Drivas Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Zeev Dvir Associate Professor

Weinan E Professor

Tarek Elgindi Instructor

Tolga Etgü Visiting Fellow

Charles Fefferman Professor

Jonathan Fickenscher Associate Research Scholar

David Gabai Chair, Professor

Ziyang Gao Instructor

Javier Gómez-Serrano Assistant Professor, Director of Graduate Studies

Robert C. Gunning Professor

Jonathan Hanselman Assistant Professor

Helmut Hofer Visiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor
Mathematics

Henry Horton Postdoctoral Research Associate

Yong Hou Lecturer
Mathematics
Tatiana Howard Lecturer

Wu-Chung Hsiang Professor Emeritus

June Huh Veblen Fellow

Mihaela Ignatova Instructor

Alexandru Ionescu Professor

Jennifer M. Johnson Senior Lecturer, Associate Departmental Representative

Nicholas Katz Professor

Casey Kelleher Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Daniel Ketover Instructor

Ilya Khayutin Veblen Research Instructor

Seongtag Kim Visiting Fellow

Sergiu Klainerman Professor

Simon Kochen Professor Emeritus

Joseph Kohn Professor Emeritus

János Kollár Professor, Department Representative

Elliott Lieb Professor Emeritus

Francesco Lin Veblen Research Instructor

Yueh-Ju Lin Instructor

Chun-Hung Liu Instructor

Robert MacPhersonVisiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor
Mathematics

Adam Marcus Assistant Professor

Fernando Codá Marques Professor

Mark McConnell Senior Lecturer

Stephen McKeown Postdoctoral Research Associate

Ana Menezes Assistant Professor

Sophie Morel Professor

Assaf Naor Professor

Evita Nestoridi Instructor

Huy Quang Nguyen Postdoctoral Research Associate

Oanh Nguyen Instructor

Peter Ozsváth Professor, Director of Graduate Studies

John Pardon Professor

Fabio Pusateri Assistant Professor

Igor Rodnianski Professor

Vermont Rutherfoord Postdoctoral Research Associate

Peter Sarnak Professor

Paul D. Seymour Professor

Tatyana Shcherbyna Assistant Professor

Nicholas Sheridan Assistant Professor

Goro Shimura Professor Emeritus

Yakov Shlapentokh-Rothman Instructor

Yakov Sinai Professor

Amit Singer Professor

Christopher Skinner Professor

Allan Sly Professor

Elias Stein Professor Emeritus

Zoltán Szabó Professor

Yunqing Tang Instructor

Richard Taylor Visiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor

Christine Taylor Senior Lecturer

Gang Tian Professor

Konstantin Tikhomirov Instructor

Hale Trotter Professor Emeritus

Karen Uhlenbeck Visiting Research Scholar

Vlad Vicol Assistant Professor

Ilya Vinogradov Lecturer

Rafael von Känel Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Joseph Waldron Instructor

Guangbo Xu Associate Research Scholar

Paul C. Yang Professor

Ian Zemke Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Shou-Wu Zhang Professor

Yongbin Zhang Visiting Research Scholar

President: Christopher Eisgruber (physics)

Princeton Univ physics dept

Michael Aizenman, Philip Anderson, Robert Austin, Waseem Bakr, Bogdan Bernevig, Ravindra Bhatt, William Bialek, Frank Calaprice, Curtis Callan, Roberto Car, Paul Chaikin, Kenan Diab, Jo Dunkley, Aurelien Fraisse, Cristiano Galbiati, Simone Giombi, Thomas Gregor, David Gross, Edward Groth, Steven Gubser, Duncan Haldane, William Happer, John Hopfield, Andrew Houck, David Huse, Norman Jarosik, William Jones, Andrew Leifer, Elliot Lieb, Daniel Marlow, Peter Meyers, James Olsen, Lyman Page, James Peebles, Alexander Polyakov, Frans Pretorius, Michael Romalis, Joshua Shaevitz, A. Smith, Shivaji Sondhi, Suzanne Staggs, Paul Steinhardt, David Tank, Joseph Taylor, Christopher Tully, Herman Verlinde, Edward Witten

Jim Burns spam of WM dark numbers bullshit


WM's profile photo
WM
, …
Jim Burns
507
unread,
Three proofs of dark numbers
On 10/2/2022 5:24 AM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Samstag, > 1. Oktober 2022 um 22:01:45
11:51 AM

Burt Rotolo's profile photo
Burt Rotolo
unread,
Re: Why doctor Richard Hachel is a hardened crank
Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 02/10/2022 à 16:08, "Dono." a écrit : >> On Sunday,
10:23 AM

Walmo Accursio's profile photo
Walmo Accursio
unread,
Re: Einstein Was A Fake Two: Assignment: Don't Stop the emails
Foos Research wrote: > Hey, don't be intelligent enough to argue a point, but do keep the >
10:19 AM

Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
Chris M. Thomasson
, …
Jim Burns
92
unread,
wrt 333...34, for Sergio...
On 10/2/2022 8:47 AM, Timothy Golden wrote: > The predecessor to 333...34 is 333...33. Having a
9:15 AM

Burt Rotolo's profile photo
Burt Rotolo
unread,
Re: Calling for help from physicists of the world--making obsolete ICBMs// AP's 191st published book Making ICBMs obsolete// Political science by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Amazon's Kindle edition
6:11 AM

William's profile photo
William
, …
WM
414
unread,
An infinite set is always "maintained"
Sergi o schrieb am Samstag, 1. Oktober 2022 um 16:21:09 UTC+2: > On 9/30/2022 4:01 PM, WM wrote:
4:36 AM


söndag 2 oktober 2022 kl. 22:30:31 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Jim Burns spam of WM dark numbers bullshit
>
>
> 
> WM's profile photo
> WM
> , …
> Jim Burns
> 507
> unread,
> Three proofs of dark numbers
> On 10/2/2022 5:24 AM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Samstag, > 1. Oktober 2022 um 22:01:45
> 11:51 AM
> 
> Burt Rotolo's profile photo
> Burt Rotolo
> unread,
> Re: Why doctor Richard Hachel is a hardened crank
> Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 02/10/2022 à 16:08, "Dono." a écrit : >> On Sunday,
> 10:23 AM
> 
> Walmo Accursio's profile photo
> Walmo Accursio
> unread,
> Re: Einstein Was A Fake Two: Assignment: Don't Stop the emails
> Foos Research wrote: > Hey, don't be intelligent enough to argue a point, but do keep the >
> 10:19 AM
> 
> Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
> Chris M. Thomasson
> , …
> Jim Burns
> 92
> unread,
> wrt 333...34, for Sergio...
> On 10/2/2022 8:47 AM, Timothy Golden wrote: > The predecessor to 333...34 is 333...33. Having a
> 9:15 AM
> 
> Burt Rotolo's profile photo
> Burt Rotolo
> unread,
> Re: Calling for help from physicists of the world--making obsolete ICBMs// AP's 191st published book Making ICBMs obsolete// Political science by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Amazon's Kindle edition
> 6:11 AM
> 
> William's profile photo
> William
> , …
> WM
> 414
> unread,
> An infinite set is always "maintained"
> Sergi o schrieb am Samstag, 1. Oktober 2022 um 16:21:09 UTC+2: > On 9/30/2022 4:01 PM, WM wrote:
> 4:36 AM
> 
why are you so gay`?

Annette Werner,Andreas Bernig,Esther Cabezas-Rivas

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)

Sergi_o,Annette Werner,Andreas Bernig,Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> 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)

tisdag 4 oktober 2022 kl. 01:44:19 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Sergi_o,Annette Werner,Andreas Bernig,Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > 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)
why are you so vulgar?