>Alan Shepard 🤡 of Math and Pauline Barmby 🃏 of Physics "Court Jester of Math"
On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Dan Christensen and Kibo Parry M. why can none of these math-physics failures see or admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse? Do they have some brain lesion that they cannot see that???

Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon

Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)

Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang

Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?

Why are these people failures of Math, Kibo Parry M?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions. Is it because they never studied Logic to think properly? To think straight and clear, and end up being clowns of math and science???

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.

Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.

> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > You may be giving him too much credit here. Judging by his bizarre antics here, he has given up obtaining any kind of positive recognition.
> >
> > Dan
>
> Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//
>
> Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
> Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
> Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
> Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
> Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
> Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler,
> Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy,
> David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz,
> Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman,
> Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
> Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods
>
> Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.
>
> Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education
>
> George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap,
> Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
> Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,
> David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
> Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,

> > #5-1, 134th published book
> >
> > > > > Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-2, 45th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #1 New Releasein General Geometry
> >
> >
> > Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.
> > Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.
> >
> > This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.
> >
> > It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.
> >
> > Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.
> >
> > Length: 399 pages
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 2023 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 399 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > #15 in General Geometry
> > #223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-3, 55th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.
> >
> > Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
> >
> > Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.
> >
> > The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism.. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.
> >
> > And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.
> >
> > But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.
> >
> > Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.
> >
> > The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 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 ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> > 

> >
> > #5-4, 56th published book
> >
> > COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> > #1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> >
> >
> > This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
> > Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
> > Length: 54 pages
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > File Size: 1035 KB
> > Print Length: 64 pages
> > Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
> > Publication Date: August 18, 2019
> > Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
> > Language: English
> > ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > Lending: Enabled
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > #38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > #318 in Calculus (Books)
> > #48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > 

> > #5-5, 72nd published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.
> >
> > Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension..
> > Length: 105 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> > #5-6, 75th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
> >
> > This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics.. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.
> >
> > Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.
> >
> > Length: 175 pages
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN : B0836F1YF6
> > Publication date : December 26, 2019
> > Language : English
> > File size : 741 KB
> > Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > Screen Reader : Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > Print length : 175 pages
> > Lending : Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-7, 89th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
> >
> > Last revision was 6Feb2021.
> > Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.
> >
> > Length: 110 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #5-8, 90th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
> >
> > Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.
> >
> > Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.
> >
> > My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.
> >
> > So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.
> >
> > Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.
> >
> > Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
> > Length: 296 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #13 in General Geometry
> > ◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-8, 160th published book
> >
> > MATHOPEDIA-- List of 80 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 28Apr2022. And this is AP's 160th book of Science.
> > Preface:
> > A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.
> > The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.
> > The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.
> > Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.
> > I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1149 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages
101> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

2>Alan Shepard 🤡 of Math and Pauline Barmby 🃏 of Physics "Court Jester of Math"
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
>
>Dan Christensen 🤡 of Math and Michael Roston 🃏 of 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:

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?
> >
> >
> > The New York Times should step in here, with its Science section-- for what the hell is it good for, if it cannot even tell the truth between a ellipse and a oval.
> >
> > And an spamming stalker idiot Kibo Parry only confuses those already confused.
> > > > Kibo Parry M. along with his 938 is 12% short of 945 wrote:
> > Constantly confusing posters and stalks sci.math with his failed and anti-science mischief.
> > > > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> >
> >
> > 
> > > > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> > > > The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.
> > 
> > > > A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, David Brooks, Michael Roston, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
> >
> >
> > > > Let us analyze AP's Proof
> >
> > > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > > >
> > > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > > >
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > >
> > > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But the side view of the cone is
> > > >
> > > > /\E
> > > > /c \
> > > > F / \
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> > > >
> >
> > > > > The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this.... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.
> >
> > > > > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish what is written in a book such as Stillwell, where Stillwell does not analyze anything, than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> > > > >
> > > > > The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.
> > > > >
> > > > > A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury,David Brooks, Michael Roston why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
> 
> >
> >
> > > > > Let us analyze AP's Proof
> >
> > 
> > > > > Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
> > > > >
> > > > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > > > >
> > > > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > > > >
> > > > > | |
> > > > > | |
> > > > > | |
> > > > >
> > > > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But the side view of the cone is
> > > > >
> > > > > /\E
> > > > > /c \
> > > > > F / \
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> >
> > 
> > 
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
>
> My 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)
11> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 10:40:32 PM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 2>Alan Shepard 🤡 of Math and Pauline Barmby 🃏 of Physics "Court Jester of Math"
> > On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > fails at math and science:
> >
> >Dan Christensen 🤡 of Math and Michael Roston 🃏 of 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:
> 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?
> > >
> > >
> > > The New York Times should step in here, with its Science section-- for what the hell is it good for, if it cannot even tell the truth between a ellipse and a oval.
> > >
> > > And an spamming stalker idiot Kibo Parry only confuses those already confused.
> > > > > Kibo Parry M. along with his 938 is 12% short of 945 wrote:
> > > Constantly confusing posters and stalks sci.math with his failed and anti-science mischief.
> > > > > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > > > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> > > > > The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.
> > > 
> > > > > A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, David Brooks, Michael Roston, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Let us analyze AP's Proof
> > >
> > > > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > > > >
> > > > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > > > >
> > > > > | |
> > > > > | |
> > > > > | |
> > > > >
> > > > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But the side view of the cone is
> > > > >
> > > > > /\E
> > > > > /c \
> > > > > F / \
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this..... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.
> > >
> > > > > > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish what is written in a book such as Stillwell, where Stillwell does not analyze anything, than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury,David Brooks, Michael Roston why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > Let us analyze AP's Proof
> > >
> > > 
> > > > > > Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > > > > >
> > > > > > | |
> > > > > > | |
> > > > > > | |
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the side view of the cone is
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /\E
> > > > > > /c \
> > > > > > F / \
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > >
> >
> > My 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)
> 11> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)