On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 03:06:05 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> This conundrum is presumably why you had to admit that you can't define

You for year now systematically posting on top of anything I post and
chasing me to every fucking newsgroup I go is really the apotheosis of
the fraudulent retarded insane nazi cunt that you are.

People like you are not even good for re-education.

ESAD.

Julio

Le 26/12/2022 à 15:18, Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
> On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 03:06:05 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> This conundrum is presumably why you had to admit that you can't define
>
> You for year now systematically posting on top of anything I post and
> chasing me to every fucking newsgroup I go is really the apotheosis of
> the fraudulent retarded insane nazi cunt that you are.
>
> People like you are not even good for re-education.
>
> ESAD.
>
> Julio

Julio you certainly have mental health issues, very big ones,
nevertheless you are one of the most despicable person posting
around sci.*, at the level of Pr Mückenheim.

You are a kook and a crank, your insults again Ben are disgusting
given how honorable and competent Ben is and the high quality
of his posts. Your posts are only a bunch of nonsense and
signs of mental illness.

I encourage people to report Julio Di Egidio multiple abuses to
abuse@eternal-september.org.

On 12/26/2022 8:18 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 03:06:05 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> This conundrum is presumably why you had to admit that you can't define
>
> You for year now systematically posting on top of anything I post and
> chasing me to every fucking newsgroup I go is really the apotheosis of
> the fraudulent retarded insane nazi cunt that you are.
>
> People like you are not even good for re-education.
>
> ESAD.
>
> Julio

https://www.esad.org/about/ ?

or

https://www.ebad.com/esad/ ?

or

https://www.esad.org.bd/ ?

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBPWXzEqwdA ?

and

https://www.americannaziparty.com/faq/

UCLA Terence Tao never going to be able to do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by making Ben Bacarisse his idol, and goosestepping his way to mathematics at UCLA. Terry, why cannot you even accept that slant cut of cone is OVAL, never the ellipse instead of running and hiding, Run Terry, Hide Terry. Terry do you want to remain as a failure of mathematics all the rest of your life?????

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)

Trouble with Gottingen is that it harbors insane idiots of math-- WM and insane idiots of physics, that no clear intelligent and logical knowledge gets through in that network of Gottingen Uni kooks.

WM,Dr. Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math especially geometry.

Python the arsewipe of sci.math with his ellipse a conic and his mindless shithead electron as 0.5MeV
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 10:11:07 AM UTC-6, Python wrote:
Gottingen University a Physics failure school. With their mindless idiots of proton 938MeV with electron of 0.5MeV flying around the outside of proton.. While AP has a logical brain and says the proton is 840MeV with muon as electron trapped inside proton doing the Faraday law and producing the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopole.

And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
......../\E
....../ c.\
F / .......\

entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.

Are they trying to turn sci.math into a gay pick up bar rather than legitimate math with endless day after day spam?

Sergi_o 68, "Questions on...."
Wolfgang Mueckenheim 324 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
of the fine Bacarisse cheese
Ben Bacarisse 323 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
FromTheRafters (more like gutters) 221 "Two similar..."
Sergi_o 161 "Two similar..."
Ben Bacarisse 133, "Two similar properties..."

WM turning Gottingen Germany into geometry failures.
Kibo chasing corpses in WM gay pick up bar, for Kibo sure does not know the difference between Oval and ellipse as seen in his latest stupidity-- a revolving axis as Kibo the moron and BWR describes it--

Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > >>> .......A
> > >>> ....../.\E
> > >>> ...../.C.\
> > >>> ..../B....\
> > >>> .../.......\
> > >>> .F/....G....\
> >
> > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
>

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 1:48:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/5/2022 12:22 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 12/4/2022 8:19 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 12/4/2022 7:43 PM, Mathin3D wrote:
> >>> Serious Question:

Kibo Parry M on Harvard's Dr. Hau.
Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Why Kibo??? Because she refuses to finish her experiment and see all the light vanishes simultaneously, or is it because she can not admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:21:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Imp of Math"
On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:06:24 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views

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:
> >

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Court Jester of Math"

Kibo,is Ruth Charney of AMS the model in your book, for she cannot admit the slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse as proven by AP in 2016? I know it falls on deaf ears of Kibo with his 938 is 12% short of 945. And Ruth, would the AMS publish Kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945, because the AMS certainly will not publish AP's conic proof? Maybe that is all the AMS publishes-- fake math.

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:43:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"bozo"
> fails at math and science:
>"psychoceramic"

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"physics hater"
> tarded:
> Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics

AP no longer tolerates 30 year nonstop stalker shitheads like Kibo Parry M.
> No wonder Dr.Tao is a failed mathematician who cannot see that |/\| planar cut simultaneously through cylinder and cone has to yield a Oval in cone, a ellipse in cylinder. Tao fails fails fails math, and no wonder the nitwit cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 6:19:00 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 12/4/2022 5:52 PM, bwr fml wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 2:39:25 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > >>> ......./\E
> > >>> ...../ c.\
> > >>> F / .......\
> > >
> > > If you are thinking your cone is symmetric around the z axis and the point c is on the z axis
> > > then you claim that Ec is less than cF is true.
> > > And that means absolutely nothing about whether the intersection of the cone and plane is an ellipse.
> > >
> > > The fundamental crank mistake you made a decade ago is thinking that the point c on the z axis
> > > has ANYTHING to do with whether the intersection is an ellipse or not..
> > >
> > > As I clearly showed a couple of days ago, the algebra CLEARLY shows that your point c needs to be
> > > exactly half way between the point E and the point F. Then the distances Ec and cF are equal.
> > > BUT, far more important, all the widths of the intersection in that plane for any distance d to the left
> > > and the distance d to the right of that point c are then precisely equal and that is the definition
> > > of a plane of symmetry and the intersection is an ellipse.
> > >
> > > But you have screeched your false claim out your crank hole for long enough and you DESPERATELY
> > > need to imagine that you are right and everyone else in the history of the world is wrong... that you
> > > probably can't ever admit that you made this mistake and just keep screeching it.
> > >
> > > Go out in your yard and scream it loud and proud:
> > > RETARDED, RETARDED, ARCHIE IS RETARDED
> > > and keep crank screaming that until they call the cops on you.
> > bwr is correct, Archie. Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed..
> > >>> .......A
> > >>> ....../.\E
> > >>> ...../.C.\
> > >>> ..../B....\
> > >>> .../.......\
> > >>> .F/....G....\
> >
> > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
>
> AP comments: so look at the moron Moroney (Kibo Parry) being a spokesperson for failed Dr. Tao with his "move around axis of the cone-- say Kibo and Tao is there a witch flying around on a broomstick in that cone also???

> > > 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

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 18:11:07 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Le 26/12/2022 à 15:18, Julio Di Egidio a écrit :
> > On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 03:06:05 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >
> >> This conundrum is presumably why you had to admit that you can't define
> >
> > You for year now systematically posting on top of anything I post and
> > chasing me to every fucking newsgroup I go is really the apotheosis of
> > the fraudulent retarded insane nazi cunt that you are.
> >
> > People like you are not even good for re-education.
> >
> > ESAD.
> >
> > Julio
> Julio you certainly have mental health issues, very big ones,
> nevertheless you are one of the most despicable person posting
> around sci.*, at the level of Pr Mückenheim.
>
> You are a kook and a crank, your insults again Ben are disgusting
> given how honorable and competent Ben is and the high quality
> of his posts. Your posts are only a bunch of nonsense and
> signs of mental illness.
>
> I encourage people to report Julio Di Egidio multiple abuses to
> ab...@eternal-september.org.

Hilarious! Jean Pierre Messager telling his fellow nutcases that they have mental health issues. ROFLMAO.

Jean, this is so cliche. Try to think of something better if you can.

You are ALL such idiots living in the utter desperation of your failures and your boring day jobs. It's obvious NONE of you ever accomplished anything in your sorry lives and without doubt will not ever. Tsk, tsk.

Speak of pot calling kettle black. Chuckle.

Tell the orderly not to remove your strait jacket, Jean!

UCLA Terence Tao never going to be able to do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by making Ben Bacarisse his idol, and goosestepping his way to mathematics at UCLA. Terry, why cannot you even accept that slant cut of cone is OVAL, never the ellipse instead of running and hiding, Run Terry, Hide Terry. Terry do you want to remain as a failure of mathematics all the rest of your life?????

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)

🪲 of Math and 🪳 of Physics Archimedes "Village Idiot of Math"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> Terry, why cannot you even accept that slant cut of cone is OVAL, never the ellipse

Why would the King of Math, Terence Tao, EVER do something so incredibly
stupid? He would only do something like that if he was trying to destroy
math, but obviously, the King of Math, Terence Tao, loves math!

> instead of running and hiding, Run Terry, Hide Terry.

When did the King of Math *ever* run and hide? Run and hide from what?
Do genius mathematicians play hide and seek?

> Terry do you want to remain as a failure of mathematics all the rest of your life?????

How could he "remain" a math failure if he was *never* a math failure!
Instead he is the King 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)

Now this is what you need to do, Plutonium. Make a paper cone where the
open end fits nicely on your head, like a hat. Paint it yellow and write
on it in big black letters the word DUNCE.

Plutonium, now cut the tip of the cone off at an angle. Make sure it's
not too small but not so large as to damage the word DUNCE you wrote
earlier. Now cut an ellipse from a piece of paper that matches the
ellipse formed when you cut the cone at a slant, write on it "ELLIPSE!"
and glue or tape it to the cone to cover the cut part.

Plutonium, now go to the nearest middle school, find the geometry
classroom, put on your new Dunce Cap and sit in a corner, facing into
the corner. Remain there until you finally understand why the slant cut
forms an ellipse. You may ask the geometry teacher for help if you wish.

On Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 05:25:11 UTC+2, Michael MORONey wrote:
> 🪲 of Math and 🪳 of Physics Archimedes "Village Idiot of Math"
> Plutonium > fails at math and science:
> > Terry, why cannot you even accept that slant cut of cone is OVAL, never the ellipse
> Why would the King of Math, Terence Tao, EVER do something so incredibly
> stupid? He would only do something like that if he was trying to destroy
> math, but obviously, the King of Math, Terence Tao, loves math!
> > instead of running and hiding, Run Terry, Hide Terry.
> When did the King of Math *ever* run and hide? Run and hide from what?
> Do genius mathematicians play hide and seek?
> > Terry do you want to remain as a failure of mathematics all the rest of your life?????
> How could he "remain" a math failure if he was *never* a math failure!
> Instead he is the King 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)
> Now this is what you need to do, Plutonium. Make a paper cone where the
> open end fits nicely on your head, like a hat. Paint it yellow and write
> on it in big black letters the word DUNCE.
>
> Plutonium, now cut the tip of the cone off at an angle. Make sure it's
> not too small but not so large as to damage the word DUNCE you wrote
> earlier. Now cut an ellipse from a piece of paper that matches the
> ellipse formed when you cut the cone at a slant, write on it "ELLIPSE!"
> and glue or tape it to the cone to cover the cut part.
>
> Plutonium, now go to the nearest middle school, find the geometry
> classroom, put on your new Dunce Cap and sit in a corner, facing into
> the corner. Remain there until you finally understand why the slant cut
> forms an ellipse. You may ask the geometry teacher for help if you wish.

Oh dear. Another way to tell a crank is when they respond to another crank like Ludwig Poehlman (Nutcase AP).

Spam fuckdogs Ben Bacarisse, WM,Jim Burns, Sergi all failures of geometry with their inability to admit the truth, slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse and all they do all day long is spam sci.math with their failed math.

Ben Bacarisse profile photo
Ben Bacarisse
626
unread,
Question on Hilbert's Hotel.
WM <mont...@t-online.de> writes: (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches
9:13 PM


WM's profile photo
WM
, …
Ben Bacarisse
45
unread,
Equal Rights!
WM <mont...@t-online.de> writes: (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches
8:47 PM

zelos...@gmail.com's profile photo
zelos...@gmail.com
, …

32
Re: Gonna cum in my mouth?
Jim Burns,Anja Karliczek,Christoph Schmidt,Thomas Mettler,Tobias Weth,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,
8:33 PM

WM's profile photo
WM
, …
Jim Burns
276
unread,
Who recognizes these true pioneers of dark numbers?
On 1/18/2023 5:16 AM, WM wrote: > Note: > "classical logic was abstracted from the >
7:59 PM

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

62
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
Jim Burns,Anja Karliczek,Karl-Henning Rehren,Ansgar Reiners,Metin Tolin,Susanne Schneider,Steffen
4:50 PM

pva...@yahoo.com's profile photo
pva...@yahoo.com
unread,
The Einstein Shift Is Actually Newton Shift


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)