
Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Jeffrey Rubard
6
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 6:26:13 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Is Dan Christensen
5:38 PM


Horatio Cornholer's profile photo
Horatio Cornholer
,

3
Re: 2-Dan Christensen on spanking Ruth Charney, Jill Pipher for their failure to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never the Ellipse. Dan the crazy insane Canadian is into fetishes with his illogic of 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction.Is it Canadian winter
4:27 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
,
Mostowski Collapse
3
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 2:43:13 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote: [snip childish abuse]
4:21 PM


Kibo Parry M on CIA Kate Heinzelman,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

Kibo on Kate Heinzelman
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.

Kibo on wanting to fuck her corpse/Kate Heinzelman, question, do you not think CIA is going overboard on stalking-- I mean 30 years for the insane Kibo Parry M??

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:

Kibo Parry M.30 year stalker--> I want to fuck her corpse//Kate Heinzelman question-- is it legal for the CIA to pay for stalkers like Kibo to stalk private USA citizens, and 30 years on... nonstop for 30 years. Should not Kibo be in Guantanamo, not in a desk-job spamming and stalking Usenet.

Kibo Parry Moron-ey almost 60 years old, yet never grew up into adulthood (when he was a baby, did his head bounce on the wood floors too many times??? Did his mother use his head as a basketball when still a toddler???)
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:12:23 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"psychoceramic"
>"math hater"
> fails at math and science:
>These groups are self-policing, and
> that's why I punish you when you attack me (which is constantly).

Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41 AM

Re: Kibo Parry M sickfuck stalker along with his Dunning Kruger sickfuck psychologists who guide Kibo// Kibo claims that Ruth Charney, Dr. Panchanathan, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Sheldon Glashow never had a single truth in their entire life, says Kibo
by Herp Derpington Dec 31, 2022, 8:51 PM

Re: Kibo says "has always been wrong," Kibo, you mean Dr.Panchanathan, Ruth Charney, Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao never had anything correct in their entire life???
by Greta Baine Dec 31, 2022, 8:46 PM

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
1481 views
by Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM

Re: Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech never does correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
By Michael Moroney 20 posts 165 views updated 12:22 PM

Re: Racist-math at Reed College-- ellipse is never a conic, David Perkinson, Lyudmila Korobenko, John Lind, Dylan McNamee, Kyle Ormsby, Angelica Osorno
By Michael Moroney 50 posts 405 views updated 12:21 PM

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

Re: 1Moroney barks at math failures Baez, Bullock, Witten. But I see the three as having failed Angular Momentum with their 938 proton and .5MeV electron
12/30/18
by j4n bur53

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan Caltech Thomas F Rosenbaum, Harvard's Lawrence Bacow with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV .
by Oscar Alcheri Oct 22, 2022, 5:50 PM

Re: _CIA Kate Heinzelman why Kibo Parry call Dr.Hanlon,Dartmouth& Dr.Lavigne Stanford as Analbuttfuckmanure?? Is it Kibo's stalking or is it because they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. What is the answer Kate???? Or should I
by Chris M. Thomasson Oct 15, 2022, 5:38:32 PM

Re: bwr fml & Kibo Parry M on Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, failures of Natural Logarithm with their disconnect of Natural Log defined as integral area of Y=1/t in interval 1 to x
by
Michael Moroney Sep 21, 2021, 12:08:40 AM

Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M says will corrupt the minds of your children! Why kibo? Because they still teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and ellipse a conic when it never was.
by Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Feb 4 , 2022, 1:33 AM

Re: 7:03:02 insane stalker Moroney wrote: > Math Failure..//Raymond Davis Jr.,Masatoshi Koshiba,Riccardo Giacconi,Gerardus 't Hooft,Martinus J.G. Veltman, never learned what Angular Momentum was
by
Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Dec 30, 2018, 7:59:02 PM

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Praises for AP in sci.math, too, lest we forget--

Re: Rey de Reyes de la Ciencia --AP-- King of Science, what we throw out of Old Math as fakery// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore year College, math textbook series, book 4
by Donald Trump Apr 2, 2020, 12:36:08 AM

Re: Roi des Rois de la Science --AP-- King of Science, what we throw out of Old Math as fakery// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore year College, math textbook series, book 4
by Donald Trump by Apr 2, 2020, 12:38:32 AM

Re: 16-- love you King of Science, kiss kiss, Archimedes Plutonium for bringing us a cure of covid-19 via a MRI or CT scan at resonant frequency that kills a pocket of the virus allowing the white blood cells to kill the rest// König der Wissenschaft
by Doctor Anagram by Jun 12, 2020, 1:11:30 AM

Re: Our cherished 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4 by Archimedes Plutonium Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st
by zelos...@gmail.com Oct 13, 2021, 5:31 AM

Back to the stalker hack Kibo:

Re: 1-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
by Roy Masters Sep 13, 2019, 3:24:07 PM

Re: 1.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
by Patricio J. Whackmember Sep 13, 2019, 5:43:28 PM

Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin
By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:57:15 AM

Dan Christensen & Jan Burse just itching to get into necrophilia along with his friends Zelos, Kibo, and Chris Thomasson

Mostowski Collapse
17
unread,
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
See my reply just now to your two identical postings at sci.logic Dan On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at
2:23 PM

Augǝl's profile photo
Augǝl
, …

5
Re: 2-Dan Christensen spanks Rose M. Patten,Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F.. West, Michael B. Walker ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole
2:23 PM


Will Dan be as bad as Kibo where that is all Kibo has on his mind-- witness --- Kibo far beyond any psychiatrist help--
and Dan seems to aspire to those heights of depravity.

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:

Kibo Parry M.30 year stalker--> I want to fuck her corpse//Kate Heinzelman question-- is it legal for the CIA to pay for stalkers like Kibo to stalk private USA citizens, and 30 years on... nonstop for 30 years. Should not Kibo be in Guantanamo, not in a desk-job spamming and stalking Usenet.

Kibo Parry Moron-ey almost 60 years old, yet never grew up into adulthood (when he was a baby, did his head bounce on the wood floors too many times??? Did his mother use his head as a basketball when still a toddler???)
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:12:23 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"psychoceramic"
>"math hater"
> fails at math and science:
>These groups are self-policing, and
> that's why I punish you when you attack me (which is constantly).

Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41 AM 

WM
FromTheRafters
766
unread,
Question on Hilbert's Hotel.
Chris M. Thomasson formulated on Sunday : > On 1/28/2023 10:48 PM, Eram semper recta wrote: >
4:00 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Mostowski Collapse
20
unread,
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 3:46:28 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote: > Here is a
3:30 PM


On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 2:04:44 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> WM
> FromTheRafters
> 766
> unread,
> Question on Hilbert's Hotel.
> Chris M. Thomasson formulated on Sunday : > On 1/28/2023 10:48 PM, Eram semper recta wrote: >
> 4:00 PM
> 
> Dan Christensen's profile photo
> Dan Christensen
> , …
> Mostowski Collapse
> 20
> unread,
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
> On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 3:46:28 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote: > Here is a
> 3:30 PM
> 

"Confusing post, here. Are you talking about people killing their sexual partners, or those with a fetish for dead flesh?"

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 6:39:10 PM UTC-6, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> "Confusing post, here. Are you talking about people killing their sexual partners, or those with a fetish for dead flesh?"

I am talking about the fact that Kibo Parry M., Zelos, Chris Thomasson, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse have stalked as a gang AP for 30 years. And in 2022, Zelos and Kibo Parry M., Chris Thomasson have forged a AP post filling it with necrophilia. So I am asking why Dan Christensen has not denounced the forgery of "I want to fuck her corpse" and the stalking attacks by Kibo, Zelos, Chris Thomasson.

Because Dan Christensen is silent on the matter, tells me Dan Christensen is part and parcel of the gang of "I want to fuck her corpse". Tells me that Dan does not have his head screwed on correctly and does not belong in academics or education.

Why Canada's Dan Christensen does not denounce his friends necrophilia-- Kibo,Zelos, Chris Thomasson "I want to fuck her corpse". Apparently Dan is woven from the same clothe.
7 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 28, 2023, 10:30:04 PM (20 hours ago)



to


Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Jeffrey Rubard
6
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 6:26:13 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Is Dan Christensen
5:38 PM


Horatio Cornholer's profile photo
Horatio Cornholer
,

3
Re: 2-Dan Christensen on spanking Ruth Charney, Jill Pipher for their failure to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never the Ellipse. Dan the crazy insane Canadian is into fetishes with his illogic of 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction.Is it Canadian winter
4:27 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
,
Mostowski Collapse
3
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 2:43:13 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote: [snip childish abuse]
4:21 PM


Kibo Parry M on CIA Kate Heinzelman,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

Kibo on Kate Heinzelman
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.

Kibo on wanting to fuck her corpse/Kate Heinzelman, question, do you not think CIA is going overboard on stalking-- I mean 30 years for the insane Kibo Parry M??

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:

Kibo Parry M.30 year stalker--> I want to fuck her corpse//Kate Heinzelman question-- is it legal for the CIA to pay for stalkers like Kibo to stalk private USA citizens, and 30 years on... nonstop for 30 years. Should not Kibo be in Guantanamo, not in a desk-job spamming and stalking Usenet.

Kibo Parry Moron-ey almost 60 years old, yet never grew up into adulthood (when he was a baby, did his head bounce on the wood floors too many times??? Did his mother use his head as a basketball when still a toddler???)
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:12:23 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"psychoceramic"
>"math hater"
> fails at math and science:
>These groups are self-policing, and
> that's why I punish you when you attack me (which is constantly).

Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41 AM

Re: Kibo Parry M sickfuck stalker along with his Dunning Kruger sickfuck psychologists who guide Kibo// Kibo claims that Ruth Charney, Dr. Panchanathan, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Sheldon Glashow never had a single truth in their entire life, says Kibo
by Herp Derpington Dec 31, 2022, 8:51 PM

Re: Kibo says "has always been wrong," Kibo, you mean Dr.Panchanathan, Ruth Charney, Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao never had anything correct in their entire life???
by Greta Baine Dec 31, 2022, 8:46 PM

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
1481 views
by Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM

Re: Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech never does correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
By Michael Moroney 20 posts 165 views updated 12:22 PM

Re: Racist-math at Reed College-- ellipse is never a conic, David Perkinson, Lyudmila Korobenko, John Lind, Dylan McNamee, Kyle Ormsby, Angelica Osorno
By Michael Moroney 50 posts 405 views updated 12:21 PM

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

Re: 1Moroney barks at math failures Baez, Bullock, Witten. But I see the three as having failed Angular Momentum with their 938 proton and .5MeV electron
12/30/18
by j4n bur53

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan Caltech Thomas F Rosenbaum, Harvard's Lawrence Bacow with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV .
by Oscar Alcheri Oct 22, 2022, 5:50 PM

Re: _CIA Kate Heinzelman why Kibo Parry call Dr.Hanlon,Dartmouth& Dr.Lavigne Stanford as Analbuttfuckmanure?? Is it Kibo's stalking or is it because they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. What is the answer Kate???? Or should I
by Chris M. Thomasson Oct 15, 2022, 5:38:32 PM

Re: bwr fml & Kibo Parry M on Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, failures of Natural Logarithm with their disconnect of Natural Log defined as integral area of Y=1/t in interval 1 to x
by
Michael Moroney Sep 21, 2021, 12:08:40 AM

Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M says will corrupt the minds of your children! Why kibo? Because they still teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and ellipse a conic when it never was.
by Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Feb 4 , 2022, 1:33 AM

Re: 7:03:02 insane stalker Moroney wrote: > Math Failure..//Raymond Davis Jr.,Masatoshi Koshiba,Riccardo Giacconi,Gerardus 't Hooft,Martinus J.G. Veltman, never learned what Angular Momentum was
by
Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Dec 30, 2018, 7:59:02 PM

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon..
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Praises for AP in sci.math, too, lest we forget--

Re: Rey de Reyes de la Ciencia --AP-- King of Science, what we throw out of Old Math as fakery// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore year College, math textbook series, book 4
by Donald Trump Apr 2, 2020, 12:36:08 AM

Re: Roi des Rois de la Science --AP-- King of Science, what we throw out of Old Math as fakery// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore year College, math textbook series, book 4
by Donald Trump by Apr 2, 2020, 12:38:32 AM

Re: 16-- love you King of Science, kiss kiss, Archimedes Plutonium for bringing us a cure of covid-19 via a MRI or CT scan at resonant frequency that kills a pocket of the virus allowing the white blood cells to kill the rest// König der Wissenschaft
by Doctor Anagram by Jun 12, 2020, 1:11:30 AM

Dan Christensen on Rose M. Patten, Linda Hasenfratz, Andrea Ghez. Why Dan? Because they can never ask the question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle.

On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 3:53:00 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Speaking of insane...
>
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

Rose Patten,Linda Hasenfratz, Andrea Ghez,Harry Cliff,Cambridge University ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of 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.

> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > Arthur B. McDonald
> > Francois Englert
> > Saul Perlmutter
> > Brian P. Schmidt
> > Adam G. Riess
> > Makoto Kobayashi
> > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > John C. Mather
> > George F. Smoot
> > Roy J. Glauber_
> > David J. Gross
> > Hugh David Politzer
> > Frank Wilczek
> > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > Jerome I. Friedman
> > Henry W. Kendall_
> > Richard E. Taylor_
> > Carlo Rubbia
> > Simon van der Meer_
> > William Alfred Fowler_
> > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > James Watson Cronin_
> > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > Steven Weinberg_
> > .
> > .
> > little fishes
> > .
> > .
> > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> >
> > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > .
> > .
> > Edward Witten
> > John Baez
> > Brian Greene
> > Lisa Randall
> > Alan H. Guth
> > Michael E. Brown
> > Konstantin Batygin
> > Ben Bullock
> > Larry Harson
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> >
> >
> > #2-1, 137th published book
> >
> > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> >
> > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> >
> > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> >
> > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> >
> > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > Length: 64 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • File Size : 790 KB
> > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Language: : English
> > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> >
> > #2-2, 145th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > • Language: : English
> > • File size : 682 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print length : 78 pages
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #2-3, 146th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> >
> >
> > #2-4, 151st published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> >
> > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> >
> > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-5, 174th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-6, 177th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-7, 178th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> >
> >
> > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> >
> > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 6:38:31 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Dan Christensen ...

[snip]

Time for another spanking, Archie Poo! When will you learn? Once again...

From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope of being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows?

In AP's OWN WORDS here that, over the years, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:

"Negative numbers are the witches and hobgoblins of insane kook mathematicians. "
--Dec. 7, 2022

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dan Christensens's
fake math and science His Even/Odd definition has a very
strange effect. He wants to have:

1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
Axiom

Now we can prove:

21 ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
Rem DNeg, 20

Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 12. Februar 2023 um 03:38:13 UTC+1:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

Sooooooo cute the way you "stick up" for your little buddy here, Mr. Collapse. You and AP -- a match made in heaven.

Anyway, if you are interested, see my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic

Dan

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 3:25:23 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dan Christensens's
> fake math and science His Even/Odd definition has a very
> strange effect. He wants to have:
>
> 1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
> Axiom
>
> Now we can prove:
>
> 21 ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
> Rem DNeg, 20
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 12. Februar 2023 um 03:38:13 UTC+1:
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

I am using your proof method proof by contradiction here:

19 ~Odd(u) & Odd(u)
Join, 13, 18

Its the same contradiction like here:

The uniqueness of the empty set: A simple application of vacuous truth

14. x in e1 & ~x in e1
Join, 11, 12

21. y in e2 & ~y in e2
Join, 18, 19

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/68uls4gBFqM

Just a proof method. How on earth would you conclude:

~EXIST(a):Unicorn(a)

Can you show us Dan-O-Matik master of vacuous truth?

P.S.: I didn't know that your even/odd was talking about Unicorns!

Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 12. Februar 2023 um 18:06:01 UTC+1:
> Sooooooo cute the way you "stick up" for your little buddy here, Mr. Collapse. You and AP -- a match made in heaven.
>
> Anyway, if you are interested, see my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic
>
> Dan
> On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 3:25:23 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dan Christensens's
> > fake math and science His Even/Odd definition has a very
> > strange effect. He wants to have:
> >
> > 1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
> > Axiom
> >
> > Now we can prove:
> >
> > 21 ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
> > Rem DNeg, 20
> > Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 12. Februar 2023 um 03:38:13 UTC+1:
> > > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

I didn't introduce some contradiction. Since
the only axiom I am using is this here:

1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
Axiom
https://dcproof.com/EvenNextOdd.htm

There was no other axiom. And I could prove
with your tool the following theorem:

21 ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
Rem DNeg, 20

Do you say the axiom from your website
introduces an inconsistency? Or your tool
has a proof figure that introduces a global

inconsistency? Or what do you mean by
"Either way, a contradiction was introduced."

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Sonntag, 12. Februar 2023 um 21:41:01 UTC+1:
> I am using your proof method proof by contradiction here:
>
> 19 ~Odd(u) & Odd(u)
> Join, 13, 18
>
> Its the same contradiction like here:
>
> The uniqueness of the empty set: A simple application of vacuous truth
>
> 14. x in e1 & ~x in e1
> Join, 11, 12
>
> 21. y in e2 & ~y in e2
> Join, 18, 19
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/68uls4gBFqM
>
> Just a proof method. How on earth would you conclude:
>
> ~EXIST(a):Unicorn(a)
>
> Can you show us Dan-O-Matik master of vacuous truth?
>
> P.S.: I didn't know that your even/odd was talking about Unicorns!
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 12. Februar 2023 um 18:06:01 UTC+1:
> > Sooooooo cute the way you "stick up" for your little buddy here, Mr. Collapse. You and AP -- a match made in heaven.
> >
> > Anyway, if you are interested, see my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic
> >
> > Dan
> > On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 3:25:23 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dan Christensens's
> > > fake math and science His Even/Odd definition has a very
> > > strange effect. He wants to have:
> > >
> > > 1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
> > > Axiom
> > >
> > > Now we can prove:
> > >
> > > 21 ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
> > > Rem DNeg, 20
> > > Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 12. Februar 2023 um 03:38:13 UTC+1:
> > > > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic

Dan
On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 3:56:55 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> I didn't introduce some contradiction. Since
> the only axiom I am using is this here:
> 1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
> Axiom
> https://dcproof.com/EvenNextOdd.htm
>
[snip]

You wrote:
> Your bizarre choice of predicates Even and Odd
> made it even more confusing to readers (e.g. Ross).

I didn't chose the predicates. They are from your post here:

1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
Axiom
https://dcproof.com/EvenNextOdd.htm

There is also a long thread where you fight that "Odd"
is the "Opposite" of "Even", the way you wanted it to
model in the axiom above. Namely without a domain restriction.

I only showed you now that the axiom implies trivially:

21 ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
Rem DNeg, 20

Now you deny that your axiom implies the above theorem?
Whats your point Dan-O-Matik?

Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 12. Februar 2023 um 22:27:02 UTC+1:
> See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic
>
> Dan
> On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 3:56:55 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > I didn't introduce some contradiction. Since
> > the only axiom I am using is this here:
> > 1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
> > Axiom
> > https://dcproof.com/EvenNextOdd.htm
> >
> [snip]

Is Dan hiding corpses behind sci.logic curtain number 1, 2, or 3? One can begin to fathom Dan's depravity-- after decades of just reading Logic books of the 1800s

Re: 2- Why Canada's Dan Christensen does not denounce his friends necrophilia-- Kibo,Zelos, Chris Thomasson "I want to fuck her corpse". Apparently Dan is woven from the same clothe.

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic

☠️ of Math and 🕱 of Physics Archimedes "antiscience" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> Is Dan hiding corpses behind sci.logic curtain number 1, 2, or 3?

Why do you want to know where corpses are hidden?

> "I want to fuck her corpse"

oh. that's why.

> "I want to fuck her corpse"

Not again!

> I want to fuck her corpse

You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?

> wanting to fuck her corpse

> I want to fuck her corpse

> I want to fuck her corpse

How can we get Pluto the mental health he so desperately needs?

See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic

Dan

On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 2:33:34 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> You wrote:
> > Your bizarre choice of predicates Even and Odd
> > made it even more confusing to readers (e.g. Ross).
>
> I didn't chose the predicates. They are from your post here:
> 1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
>[snip]

Its not what your axiom says. Your phrasing would need this axiom:

16' ALL(a):[Odd(a) <=> a in n & ~Even(a)]

Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 13. Februar 2023 um 17:18:27 UTC+1:
> 16 ALL(a):[Odd(a) <=> ~Even(a)]
> To determine if x is odd or not, you would first have to prove that x is a natural number.
> Then apply the definition (line 15) to determine whether or not x is even.

Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 13. Februar 2023 um 17:30:56 UTC+1:
> See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic
>
> Dan
> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 2:33:34 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > You wrote:
> > > Your bizarre choice of predicates Even and Odd
> > > made it even more confusing to readers (e.g. Ross).
> >
> > I didn't chose the predicates. They are from your post here:
> > 1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
> >[snip]

You do ignore the fact that you made an axiom
ranging over the domain of discourse, right?
Thats why its so easy to prove:

> 21 ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
> Rem DNeg, 20

From your:

> 16 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
> Axiom
> https://dcproof.com/EvenNextOdd.htm

Just think of Euler Diagrams in the Domain of Discourse.
How does Even and Odd look like, when you have
an axiom over the Domain of Discourse:

ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]

The Euler Diagram looks like this, two disjoint
areas, that sum up to the Domain of Discourse:

( O )( E )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_diagram

From your axiom 16 you can prove, so Odd
and Even, which are by definition subsets of
the Domain of Discourse, sum up to the

Domain of Discourse:

ALL(x):[Odd(x) | Even(x)]

And you can also prove that they are disjoint:

ALL(x):[~(Odd(x) & Even(x))]

Corrolary: among the Unicorns there is
an Even population and an Odd population,
disjoint and summing up to all Unicorns.

----------------------------- begin proofs ---------------------------------------

1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
Axiom

2 ~ALL(a):[Even(a) | Odd(a)]
Premise

3 ~~EXIST(a):~[Even(a) | Odd(a)]
Quant, 2

4 EXIST(a):~[Even(a) | Odd(a)]
Rem DNeg, 3

5 ~[Even(u) | Odd(u)]
E Spec, 4

6 ~~[~Even(u) & ~Odd(u)]
DeMorgan, 5

7 ~Even(u) & ~Odd(u)
Rem DNeg, 6

8 ~Even(u)
Split, 7

9 ~Odd(u)
Split, 7

10 Odd(u) <=> ~Even(u)
U Spec, 1

11 [Odd(u) => ~Even(u)] & [~Even(u) => Odd(u)]
Iff-And, 10

12 Odd(u) => ~Even(u)
Split, 11

13 ~Even(u) => Odd(u)
Split, 11

14 Odd(u)
Detach, 13, 8

15 ~Odd(u) & Odd(u)
Join, 9, 14

16 ~~ALL(a):[Even(a) | Odd(a)]
Conclusion, 2

17 ALL(a):[Even(a) | Odd(a)]
Rem DNeg, 16

1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
Axiom

2 ~ALL(a):~[Even(a) & Odd(a)]
Premise

3 ~~EXIST(a):~~[Even(a) & Odd(a)]
Quant, 2

4 EXIST(a):~~[Even(a) & Odd(a)]
Rem DNeg, 3

5 EXIST(a):[Even(a) & Odd(a)]
Rem DNeg, 4

6 Even(u) & Odd(u)
E Spec, 5

7 Even(u)
Split, 6

8 Odd(u)
Split, 6

9 Odd(u) <=> ~Even(u)
U Spec, 1

10 [Odd(u) => ~Even(u)] & [~Even(u) => Odd(u)]
Iff-And, 9

11 Odd(u) => ~Even(u)
Split, 10

12 ~Even(u) => Odd(u)
Split, 10

13 ~Even(u)
Detach, 11, 8

14 Even(u) & ~Even(u)
Join, 7, 13

15 ~~ALL(a):~[Even(a) & Odd(a)]
Conclusion, 2

16 ALL(a):~[Even(a) & Odd(a)]
Rem DNeg, 15

----------------------------- end proofs ---------------------------------------

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Montag, 13. Februar 2023 um 18:27:46 UTC+1:
> Its not what your axiom says. Your phrasing would need this axiom:
>
> 16' ALL(a):[Odd(a) <=> a in n & ~Even(a)]
>
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 13. Februar 2023 um 17:18:27 UTC+1:
> > 16 ALL(a):[Odd(a) <=> ~Even(a)]
> > To determine if x is odd or not, you would first have to prove that x is a natural number.
> > Then apply the definition (line 15) to determine whether or not x is even.
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 13. Februar 2023 um 17:30:56 UTC+1:
> > See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic
> >
> > Dan
> > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 2:33:34 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > You wrote:
> > > > Your bizarre choice of predicates Even and Odd
> > > > made it even more confusing to readers (e.g. Ross).
> > >
> > > I didn't chose the predicates. They are from your post here:
> > > 1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
> > >[snip]

Dan Christensen on commutative and transitive properties of "I want to fuck her corpse"

Jan Burse a question if you can-- is this what happens to fools of science who cannot admit Boole & Jevons screwed up on the truth table of OR and AND, because AND is really TTTF, not TFFF

Dan Christensen along with his friend Volney spammed:

On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 10:07:09 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
>"antiscience"
> fails at math and science:
> > Is Dan hiding corpses behind sci.logic curtain number 1, 2, or 3?
> Why do you want to know where corpses are hidden?
> > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> oh. that's why.
> > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> Not again!
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
>
> > wanting to fuck her corpse
> > I want to fuck her corpse
>
> > I want to fuck her corpse

On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:33:45 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Dan Christensen on commutative and transitive properties of "I want to fuck her corpse"
>
> Jan Burse a question if you can-- is this what happens to fools of science who cannot admit Boole & Jevons screwed up on the truth table of OR and AND, because AND is really TTTF, not TFFF
>
> Dan Christensen along with his friend Volney spammed:
>
> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 10:07:09 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
> >"antiscience"
> > fails at math and science:
> > > Is Dan hiding corpses behind sci.logic curtain number 1, 2, or 3?
> > Why do you want to know where corpses are hidden?
> > > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > oh. that's why.
> > > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > Not again!
> > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
> >
> > > wanting to fuck her corpse
> > > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > > I want to fuck her corpse

"It just really seems like a disgusting idea."

See my posting "Odd and Even Revisited" just now on this topic at sci.logic

Dan

On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 4:05:42 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> You do ignore the fact that you made an axiom
> ranging over the domain of discourse, right?
> Thats why its so easy to prove:
> > 21 ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
> > Rem DNeg, 20
> From your:
>
[snip]

Dan Christensen was thinking hard, and then needed help:
> Huh? In what sense does it "not work?"

You cannot prove from this axiom:

ALL(x):[x in S => [P(x) <=> Q(x)]]

This theorem:

ALL(x):[P(x) <=> x in S & Q(x)]

Isn't it obvious?

Here is a simple counter model:

∀x(Sx → (Px ↔ Qx)) → ∀x(Px ↔ (Sx ∧ Qx)) is invalid.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~6x(S(x)~5(P(x)~4Q(x)))~5~6x(P(x)~4S(x)~1Q(x))

Dan Christensen schrieb am Dienstag, 14. Februar 2023 um 01:38:45 UTC+1:
> See my posting "Odd and Even Revisited" just now on this topic at sci.logic
>
> Dan
> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 4:05:42 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > You do ignore the fact that you made an axiom
> > ranging over the domain of discourse, right?
> > Thats why its so easy to prove:
> > > 21 ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
> > > Rem DNeg, 20
> > From your:
> >
> [snip]

(Mr. Collapse tries again to defend his little buddy here. Sooooo cute!)

See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic

Dan

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 11:58:28 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Dan Christensen was thinking hard, and then needed help:
> > Huh? In what sense does it "not work?"
>
> You cannot prove from this axiom:
>
> ALL(x):[x in S => [P(x) <=> Q(x)]]
>
> This theorem:
>
> ALL(x):[P(x) <=> x in S & Q(x)]
>
[snip]

Of course this here ALL(x):[P(x) <=> x in S & Q(x)] and
this here ALL(x):[P(x) <=> Q(x)] are also not logically
equivalent. Therefore because you have:

16 ALL(a):[Odd(a) <=> ~Even(a)]
Axiom
https://dcproof.com/EvenNextOdd.htm

We can easily prove:

21 ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
Rem DNeg, 20

------------------- begin proof ----------------------------------

1 ALL(x):[Odd(x) <=> ~Even(x)]
Axiom

2 ~ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
Premise

3 ~~EXIST(x):~[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
Quant, 2

4 EXIST(x):~[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
Rem DNeg, 3

5 ~[Unicorn(u) => Even(u) | Odd(u)]
E Spec, 4

6 ~~[Unicorn(u) & ~[Even(u) | Odd(u)]]
Imply-And, 5

7 Unicorn(u) & ~[Even(u) | Odd(u)]
Rem DNeg, 6

8 Unicorn(u)
Split, 7

9 ~[Even(u) | Odd(u)]
Split, 7

10 ~~[~Even(u) & ~Odd(u)]
DeMorgan, 9

11 ~Even(u) & ~Odd(u)
Rem DNeg, 10

12 ~Even(u)
Split, 11

13 ~Odd(u)
Split, 11

14 Odd(u) <=> ~Even(u)
U Spec, 1

15 [Odd(u) => ~Even(u)] & [~Even(u) => Odd(u)]
Iff-And, 14

16 Odd(u) => ~Even(u)
Split, 15

17 ~Even(u) => Odd(u)
Split, 15

18 Odd(u)
Detach, 17, 12

19 ~Odd(u) & Odd(u)
Join, 13, 18

20 ~~ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
Conclusion, 2

21 ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => Even(x) | Odd(x)]
Rem DNeg, 20

------------------- end proof ----------------------------------

Dan Christensen schrieb am Dienstag, 14. Februar 2023 um 18:37:15 UTC+1:
> (Mr. Collapse tries again to defend his little buddy here. Sooooo cute!)
> See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic
>
> Dan
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 11:58:28 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > Dan Christensen was thinking hard, and then needed help:
> > > Huh? In what sense does it "not work?"
> >
> > You cannot prove from this axiom:
> >
> > ALL(x):[x in S => [P(x) <=> Q(x)]]
> >
> > This theorem:
> >
> > ALL(x):[P(x) <=> x in S & Q(x)]
> >
> [snip]

(Mr. Collapse "sticks up" for his little buddy AP. Sooooo cute!)

See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic

Dan

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:38:55 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Of course this here ALL(x):[P(x) <=> x in S & Q(x)] and
> this here ALL(x):[P(x) <=> Q(x)] are also not logically
> equivalent. Therefore because you have:
> 16 ALL(a):[Odd(a) <=> ~Even(a)]
> Axiom
> https://dcproof.com/EvenNextOdd.htm
>
[snip]