Message-ID:

Between infinite and short there is a big difference. -- G. H. Gonnet

tech / sci.math / Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Oxford Univ Lord-Patten-of-Barnes and Louise Richardson fire Andrew Wiles from math education. For he fails math, in that he can never admit the truth of mathematics. A slant cut in cylinder is indeed a Ellipse, but a slant cut in a Cone turns out is a Oval, never the ellipse. And the impish fool of math Andrew Wiles was given 2022-2016 was given 6 years to admit and recognize the truth of conics and all he did was "run and hide". Our young students do not deserve a failed imp of mathematics.

As for Wiles's awards in mathematics, those need to be returned and a statement given that Wiles's mathematics on Fermat's Last Theorem are as flawed and failed as his inability to even recognize the truth of simple mathematics-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Andrew Wiles is not a mathematician but a fool mockery of math and science truth. And our students do not deserve to be brainwashed by the imp imbecilic math of Andrew Wiles. Why in fact, Andrew still believes in the totally flawed Boole Logic of AND truth table as TFFF as he uses in his con-art of FLT, which such ridiculous statements as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

Oxford University-- bad, bad, real bad when your students at Oxford know more about true math geometry than does the teacher Andrew Wiles, in fact the form-grade students in Oxford can take a paper cone with Kerr or Mason lid and see for themselves the slant cut is OVAL, never the ellipse.

Dr. Andrew Wiles is a math failure who simply grubs and grubs for fame and fortune but never any solid truth about math or science, and so bad in geometry that it keeps his dull mind away from even entertaining a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Dr. Wiles is a menace to math education and needs to be expelled out of mathematics. Oxford, save the students, get rid of the imp of math.

3rd published book

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

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

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

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

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

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

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

My 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

Click here to read the complete article

Kibo better than Andrew Wiles in math-- yet Kibo Parry M still believes 938 is 12% short of 945. But Dr. Wiles of Oxford Univ, runs and hides, hides and runs whenever the question arises-- is slant cut of cone a ellipse or as AP proves-- it is a Oval. No, Dr.Wiles should be drummed out of math completely. For here is the awful situation of a person not in math-- Kibo Parry M. who is on his way of the "realization slant cut of cone is a OVAL, never the ellipse". Yet there you have the silly fool of math Dr.Wiles of Oxford Univ, run and hide, run Andrew, hide Andrew. Same thing can be said of Ruth Charney the recent head of AMS, run Ruth, hide Ruth, even though her so called specialty was geometry, Ruth, Ruth, run and hide.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:51:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/23/2022 1:06 AM, Earle Jones wrote:
> > *
> > Anyone who has taught mathematics at the college freshman level (as I have at Georgia Tech as a TA) went through the fairly simple process, using analytic geometry to define what is a conic section. If you can follow this, just perform these steps: First, write the definition of a cone (in x, y, z space). It is not difficult. Then, write the equation of an inclined plane in three-space. Then, if you have done the work accurately, you can solve these two equations simultaneously. That gives the locus of all points common to the cone and the inclined plane. (This is the definition of a section.) The resulting equation will be an ellipse, a circle, a parabola, or a hyperbola, depending on the exact inclined plane you have chosen. By the way, this was first demonstrated in about 300 BC, even before the original Archmedes (not the Plutonium version.)
> >
> > earle
> > *
> Plutonium's argument is based on axes of symmetry. While his so-called
> "proof" is rambling and in no way a valid math proof, its basic argument
> is a tilted plane intersecting a cone will have the side nearest the
> apex of the cone will be smaller than the side tilting away from the
> apex, simply because the cone itself gets smaller near the apex and
> larger away from it. Thus his "proof" is that the cone isn't symmetric
> _around the axis of the cone_. However the cone's formula will have
> something like (x-k)^2 in it, which is obviously symmetric around the
> x=k plane.
>
> I know if you look at a drawing, it doesn't look like it could be an
> ellipse. I think of this as like a "mathematical optical illusion".
>
> This is easier to visualize if the cone is tilted around the y axis,
> with its apex at the point (x=0,y=0,z=0) and is intersected by the plane
> z=m for some m.
>
>
> Here's a proof someone (I forget who) wrote earlier in response to AP,
> that tilts the cone and the cone is intersected by the plane
> z=<constant>. It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.
>
>
>
> I'll start with the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2, and rotate it through an angle
> 'theta' around the 'y' axis, and consider the intersection of that
> rotated cone with the plane z = <constant>
>
> To simplify things, let c = cos(theta) and s = sin(theta). Then the
> rotation is defined by
>
> z --> cz + sx
> x --> -sz + cx
> y --> y
>
> So the equation of the rotated cone is
>
> (cz+sx)^2 = (-sz+cx)^2 + y^2
>
> and now let C = c^2-s^2 and S = 2sc (again, just to simplify the look
> of things)
>
> so we get
>
> Cz^2 = Cx^2 - 2Szx + y^2
>
> and letting 'z' equal the constant 'k' gives
>
> Ck^2 + k^2*S^2/C = C(x - k*S/C)^2 + y^2
>
> which is the equation of an ellipse if C > 0.

On 10/23/2022 1:51 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.

This proof skips several steps before the last line, so it's far from
obvious. I will have to make it clearer, and add the skipped steps back in.

---------

Kibo of course is a loud math in sci.math and sci.physics and should never have posted but watched and listened.