This is a fractal I made around 10 years ago:

Fract-O-Lantern

https://fractalforums.org/gallery/1612-311021102859.jpeg

Never any math from the fractal crackpot, why the hell should he be allowed to spam sci.math for another 30 years. He is no different than the spammer Kibo with his "want to fuck a dead corpse" or Earle Jones "Psychoceramics job offer employment on Stanford Univ campus"

Earle, do they make a mean milkshake there??

On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:36:28 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> This is a fractal I made around 10 years ago:
>
> Fract-O-Lantern
>
> https://fractalforums.org/gallery/1612-311021102859.jpeg

Fang you, fang you very much.

Happy Halloween, Chris.

On 11/1/2022 4:23 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:36:28 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> This is a fractal I made around 10 years ago:
>>
>> Fract-O-Lantern
>>
>> https://fractalforums.org/gallery/1612-311021102859.jpeg
>
> Fang you, fang you very much.

:^D

>
> Happy Halloween, Chris.

Thanks Ross. :^)

On 10/31/2022 10:31 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Never any math from the fractal crackpot,

Never? Humm... Really?

Well, if you need any help implementing one of my algorithms, just ask.
Here is one for you to sink your teeth into:

http://paulbourke.net/fractals/multijulia

Any thoughts?

> why the hell should he be allowed to spam sci.math for another 30 years. He is no different than the spammer Kibo with his "want to fuck a dead corpse" or Earle Jones "Psychoceramics job offer > employment on Stanford Univ campus"
>
> Earle, do they make a mean milkshake there??

On 10/31/2022 10:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> This is a fractal I made around 10 years ago:
>
> Fract-O-Lantern
>
> https://fractalforums.org/gallery/1612-311021102859.jpeg
>

looks like you nuked it in the microwave... But it was all numerically derived!

On 10/31/2022 8:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> This is a fractal I made around 10 years ago:
>
> Fract-O-Lantern
>
> https://fractalforums.org/gallery/1612-311021102859.jpeg
>

Iirc, this was from a formula of mine that triggered a very interesting
bug in a piece of fractal software. I did this around 10+ years ago. I
think I wrote about the bug. Iirc, the bug was on Xaos. Way back when I
was writing my own personal software, I would check it against other
people's software wrt certain formulas...

https://groups.google.com/g/xaos-devel/c/fuFN3MJteoc

https://element90.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/another-unexpected-difference

Read all of the links. Wow, how time passes.

Why cannot Andrew Wiles, Roger Penrose, Terence Tao admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, were they brainwashed in school?

On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 1:36:16 AM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 1:10:44 AM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson
> >> wrote:
> >>> I think this is one for my name: christhomasson
> >>>
> >>
> >> Then Mr. Homasson it is.
> >>
> NEWS ALERT!
>
> Russia sunk three US warships. One of them was a carrier!

No Chris, focus on electric power lines in Russia, as they destroy Ukraine.

NEWS: the kooks of math Andrew Wiles and Roger Penrose, admitting that slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. I always knew these two math failures would have at least a tiny shred of reasong inside their micro-brain.

Terence Tao, since you failed math with your slant cut of cone a ellipse and too stupid to admit your mistake, for a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, a cone and oval have but 1 axis of symmetry. Since UCLA's Terence Tao is too proud and dumb to admit he screwed up on such simple geometry, that perhaps Earle Jones the physics failure of Ohm's law will give you a dishwasher job that he so eagerly offers.

Why Terence Tao, you are so bad in mathematics, in your entire career in math you never recognized Calculus was geometry, and therefore needed a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Terry you are such an idiot of mathematics, as a person doing math that has no logical brains to be doing math-- consider your work in Prime numbers Terry, you never understood that Naturals have no division well defined upon Naturals, logically leading to the fact that Primes is a delusional concept-- and the reason that primes never have any pattern. duh duh, Terry-- meaning that anyone with theorems on primes is further delusional.

Yet, what the GREATEST MATH PRIZE of the 20th century was -- was a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- yet the idiot of math-- Terence Tao, deaf dumb and silent throughout. And no wonder, Terry failed, he has not even the "honesty of character" to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.

Yet those at UCLA think Terry Tao is teaching math, no, what he is doing is brainwashing polluting math for young students wanting to learn math.
Why not pack it up, Terry, before you brainwash any more of the students at UCLA and elsewhere with you b.s. math.

1> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
2> 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.
>
3> 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
>
4> #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)
>
5> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science..
> Preface:
6> 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)
7> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

On Tuesday, 1 November 2022 at 06:31:56 UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 November 2022 at 04:36:28 UTC+1, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
> Never any math from the fractal crackpot,

When "do not feed the trolls" is the ultimate wisdom...
One thing is defending yourself from the nazi-retarded
cunts polluting this and all ponds, another and not
condonable is YOU competing for who's the worst
spammer around here.

Get a grip man, do the right thing or get lost forever
together with that insane lot...

Julio

On 12/16/2022 4:29 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 November 2022 at 06:31:56 UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 1 November 2022 at 04:36:28 UTC+1, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>> Never any math from the fractal crackpot,
>
> When "do not feed the trolls" is the ultimate wisdom...
> One thing is defending yourself from the nazi-retarded
> cunts polluting this and all ponds, another and not
> condonable is YOU competing for who's the worst
> spammer around here.
>
> Get a grip man, do the right thing or get lost forever
> together with that insane lot...

If you or AP need any help implementing one of my algorithms:

http://paulbourke.net/fractals/multijulia

feel free to ask. I can help you out for sure.