14th published book

Correcting Math// Math focus series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In the 1990s, I took a survey of Math Professors doing a simple math proof of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof, and found that 84% of Math Professors failed to deliver a valid proof in that survey. The reason I believe this poor performance is that math professors for the most part are never required to take Logic courses while in college, to teach them how to think straight, think clearly. As a result, the world is cluttered with their fake mathematics with no hope of cleaning up their messes. And instead of fixing their mistakes and errors, they keep on cluttering the world with more fake math.

I propose that all math professors be required to take Logic in College as a mandatory requirement. Further, I recommend that all math prizes such as Abel, Fields, etc, that all math prizes awarded to those that can show they first fixed errors "fixed something of Old Math" before any of their manuscript of a proof of something else new in math be considered or given a look-over. That is-- prove yourself first -- you can fix math before we want to look at your new offerings. Show yourself as being math intelligent by fixing errors, rather than throw another error filled fake-proof onto mathematics-- Appel & Haken fake 4 Color Mapping, Wiles's fake FLT, Hales's fake Kepler Packing, Tao & Green fake number theory proof. Show us you can fix math, then we can consider anything new you want to offer.

Cover picture: A tractrix formed by a pocket-watch on graph paper, for this is how infinity borderline is determined.

Product details
File Size: 2026 KB
Print Length: 722 pages
Publication Date: March 15, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ2CXBY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:11:06 PM UTC-6, V V V V V wrote:
> I'm wishing You a great day !!!!!!!!

Happy New Year

Sergi,Thomas Mettler,Tobias Weth,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,Susanne Schneider,Steffen Schumann, Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math--slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse geometry.
> > > > > > > > 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 589 "Question on Hilbert's.."
Eram semper (John Gabriel) 218 "Who recognizes these ...dark numbers"
> Ben Bacarisse 34 "Equal Rights"
> > Jim Burns & Sergi 166 " Who recognizes..."
> > > Chris Thomasson 157 "Who recognizes..dark numbers"
> > > > Ben Bacarisse 23 "Equal Rights"
> > > > > Jim Burns 93, "Who recognizes..."
> > > > > > Sergi 60 "Who recognizes..."
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Fritz Feldhase 43 "Who recognizes...dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > WM 30 "Who recognizes... dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > 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