+sickfuck spammers WM,William-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus, and his mindless Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and geometry failure who cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse

These constant daily spammers-- failures of math WM--stupid on ellipse a conic, Boole Logic 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, too ignorant to know calculus is geometry and provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

, …
Fritz Feldhase
833
unread,
Question on Hilbert's Hotel.
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:38:00 AM UTC+1, WM wrote: > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Donnerstag,
8:59 PM


Math Failures Ben Bacarisse,W. Mueckenheim, Gottingen Uni Metin Tolin stupid on ellipse a conic, Boole Logic 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, too ignorant to know calculus is geometry and provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

WM
, …
Fritz Feldhase
833
unread,
Question on Hilbert's Hotel.
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:38:00 AM UTC+1, WM wrote: > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Donnerstag,
8:59 PM


7
Math Failures Ben Bacarisse,W. Mueckenheim, Gottingen Uni Metin Tolin stupid on ellipse a conic, Boole Logic 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, too ignorant to know calculus is geometry and provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

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)
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 4, 2023, 12:23:46 AM (yesterday)



to
WM, Fritz Feldhase, Ben Bacarisse-- these constant daily spammers-- failures of math WM--stupid on ellipse a conic, Boole Logic 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, too ignorant to know calculus is geometry and provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

WM's profile photo
WM
, …
Fritz Feldhase
834
unread,
Question on Hilbert's Hotel.
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:00:37 PM UTC+1, WM wrote: > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Freitag, 3.
Feb 3


WM,Dan Christensen,Gus Gassmann, Jim Burns, FromTheRafters

sickfuck spammers WM,William-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus, and his mindless Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and geometry failure who cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse
>
>
>
> These constant daily spammers-- failures of math WM--stupid on ellipse a conic, Boole Logic 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, too ignorant to know calculus is geometry and provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

, …
Dan Christensen
8 sickfuck spammers Fritz Feldhase,WM-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus, and his mindless Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and geometry failure who cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse
6:32 PM

WM's profile photo
WM
, …
Chris M. Thomasson
119
unread,
The testimony of unit fractions
> , …
> Fritz Feldhase
> 833
> unread,
> Question on Hilbert's Hotel.
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:38:00 AM UTC+1, WM wrote: > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Donnerstag,
> 8:59 PM
> 
>
> Math Failures Ben Bacarisse,W. Mueckenheim, Gottingen Uni Metin Tolin stupid on ellipse a conic, Boole Logic 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, too ignorant to know calculus is geometry and provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
>
>
>
> WM
> , …
> Fritz Feldhase
> 833
> unread,
> Question on Hilbert's Hotel.
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:38:00 AM UTC+1, WM wrote: > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Donnerstag,
> 8:59 PM
> 
>
> 7
> Math Failures Ben Bacarisse,W. Mueckenheim, Gottingen Uni Metin Tolin stupid on ellipse a conic, Boole Logic 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, too ignorant to know calculus is geometry and provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
>
> 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)
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> Feb 4, 2023, 12:23:46 AM (yesterday)
> 
> 
> 
> to
> WM, Fritz Feldhase, Ben Bacarisse-- these constant daily spammers-- failures of math WM--stupid on ellipse a conic, Boole Logic 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, too ignorant to know calculus is geometry and provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
>
> WM's profile photo
> WM
> , …
> Fritz Feldhase
> 834
> unread,
> Question on Hilbert's Hotel.
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:00:37 PM UTC+1, WM wrote: > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Freitag, 3.
> Feb 3
> 