How can you..not distinguish..
1m^2 from 1m^3 ..If..10i *10i *10i = 1000i^3 ?
It depends on not knowing that the T.d.i. it is derivative.
Knowing this, one would understand that 0.1 *0.1 = 0.01m^2.
That is: 10c *10c = 100c^2 = 1dm^2 = 1i^2.

So 0.1 *0.1 *100 =1m^3 => for 100/0.1=1000i.
Aliases 1dm *1dm *1000dm =1000dm^3 = 1m^3.
Moreover, it is not admissible that 1i *1i = 1c.

So if you thought that.. the T.d.i.... said: 1dm *1dm = 1cm.
You should.. avoid using it.. as it would make you Wrong -:)))
But it's not her that makes you screw up.. It's you who doesn't know how to use it.
Indeed.. it would be enough to know.. that 3 factors produce 1 volume

Greetings from T.n.p. => 5^3+7^3 =12m*(35m^2+4m^2) =468m^3.
If.. there are.. large m^3.. there are also.. small volumes.
In fact: 0.5 * 0.5 *2 = 0.5m^3 = 500i^3.. which, said in dm, is worth
5dm *5dm *20dm = 500dm^3. Your problem is
in not considering that the Integers are only tens of dm.
1/0.1 =10dm...2/0.1 =20i...5/0.1 =50i...10/0.1 = 100dm.

🤡David Brooks🤡Michael Roston🤡The New York Times🃏Physics "Court Jester of Math"
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney (Kibo Parry M) wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
> Well, Kibo, fire them all and be done with it, if they cannot admit the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse.

Kibo, what is the point of New York having a newspaper of NYT when its citizens want to know whether slant cut of cone is ellipse or oval, such as Mr. Marshall Lett, and here the NYT science section empty of solving the question, all because the NYT has AP on a black list-- can never publish the name Archimedes Plutonium. Such childishness does the NYT have.


> > Kibo Parry M, why you hate the NYT with David Brooks and Michael Roston, is it because everyone there cannot ask the simple question of AP-- which is the Atom's true electron-- Muon or 0.5MeV particle, is that why you hate the NYT newspaper--so so dumb in science.
> >
> > The AP mantra of current science where most people fail:
> > > > 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> > > > 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> > > > 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> > > > 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> > David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.
> > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > >
> > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> > > Look, the NYT cannot even cover the truth of math or science, and thus, cannot tell the truth of social life in America of politics, of history. If you cannot tell the truth of a Oval versus Ellipse, anything else you say is likely to be the truth.
> > >
> > > The New York Times cannot cover the truth of math or science-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Means the The New York Times is a garbage newsprint that cannot cover the truth of history, politics or the daily news.
> > >
> > > The New York Times, certainly cannot tell the truth about math or science, certainly then, cannot tell the truth about history or politics. As soon as David Brooks opens his mouth on politics, is as soon as- turn the TV off. For The New York Times is not about the "truth of the world" but about their own childish games. A sort of Fascism of News.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> > > David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???
> > >
> > >
> > > > Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
> > > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
> > > >
> > > > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
>
> 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)

In my opinion..They understand....But, the Many..don't want to
admit that.. until now.. they would have... everything wrong.

Greetings from T.n.p. 35i *70i *140i = 343'000i^3 = 7^3 = 343m^3.
Exactly like ..3.5 *7 *14 = 343m^3..but what does it mean :
343m^3 if not 343'000dm^3 If 7/0.1 =70i..14/0.1 =140i-:)))

And how could one not understand that the T.d.i. is Derivative ??
So it must say : 0.5 *0.5 *0.5 = 1.25m^3 = 125dm^3 ????
Who would they be..The Real Pazzi..it's very easy to Understand!!

> > And how could one not understand that the T.d.i. is Derivative ??
> > So it must say : 0.5 *0.5 *0.5 = 1.25m^3 = 125dm^3 ????

> I would say that they are conditioned by the computer, so they don't make it
> realize that the T.d.i. makes .. the small volumes depend on 1m^3.. and in the..
> at the same time they think that 1m^3 =1m.linear.like 10m^3 =10..

Did you forget that for the Mathematician : 1m = 1m^2 = 1m^3...
Like 10m =10m^2 =10m^3..For them 0.1^3 =1kg becomes 0.001=1mm.
Like 1c *1c *1c =1g. for them it becomes 0.01^3 = 0.000001=1/1000000.

> Ex : 5i *5i *20i = 500i^3. which for them is ; 0.5 *0.5 *2 =0.5..bananas-:)
> But if the result must be 0.5...why add : 0.5 *2 ??
> You don't know that 3.factors must produce a Volume...True??

They..chop..saying 0.5 *0.5 = 0.25 so = 0.25 *2 = 0.5-:))
Maybe they knew that 0.25m^2 = 25i^2 so 25i^2 * 20i = 500i^3.
It would suffice to understand that 3.factors give 1Volume in the case : 0.5m^3.

Greetings from Socratis 5dm*10dm*20dm = 1000dm^3. = 1m^3
Like ===========> 5m *10m *20m ==1000m^3.

Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2022 alle 06:21:45 UTC+1 Socratis T.n.p. ha scritto:

0.5 *0.5 *2 = 0.5m^3 ==> 5i *5i *20i = 500i^3.=> per 2m = 20i.

.........///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////|
.......///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////..|
.....///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////....|
...///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////......|
///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////........|
|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|......../
|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|....../
|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|..../
|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|../
|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|/

1i *5i *5i = 25i^3 = 25.litri.kg.
1i *5i *10i = 50i^3
1i *5i *20i = 100i^3
5i *5i *20i ==500i^3 =0.5m^3
5i *10i *20i =1000i^3 = 1m^3
10i *10i *20i= 2000i^3
10i *20i *20i = 4000i^3
20i *20i *20i= 8000i^3 =8m^3.

Socratis.