Who is the redneck censor blocking AP, King of Science from Wyoming High School notable alumni?? AP is in Univ Cincinnati and Utah State Univ. rightfully so. But what redneck censor kicked the King of Science out of his own High School???
7m views

Who is the redneck censor blocking AP, King of Science from Wyoming High School notable alumni?? AP is in Univ Cincinnati and Utah State Univ. rightfully so. But what redneck censor kicked the King of Science out of his own High School???

I was looking to see what redneck censor had kicked AP off of his own High School-- Notable Persons.

I mean-- the King of Science-- you cannot get more Notable than that, .... ever....

Perhaps one of the teachers or administrators of Wyoming High School pulled the nefarious deed-- wanting to continue brainwashing and polluting the minds of youngsters with 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction in Boole logic, or with slant cut of cone is ellipse when in fact many of the smart Wyoming High School students in class can show the stupid math teacher it is a oval, not a ellipse.

Or in chemistry class, smart students can show the brainwashed chemistry teacher that the Lewis diagrams should be based on 6 not 8 because the CO and N2 molecules have the highest dissociation energies.

Or in physics class, many of the smartest Wyoming High School students can show the brainwashing physics teacher that the true electron of Atoms is the Muon stuck inside a 840 MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Wyoming High School probably teaches the Faraday law in physics, but probably never mentions that Dirac searched most of his life for a magnetic monopole-- which in truth is the 0.5MeV particle falsely identified as the Atom's electron.

So, well, who is acting as a redneck censor that pulled Archimedes Plutonium (Ludwig Hansen) from his high school list of Notables????

Who is the redneck censor blocking AP, King of Science from Wyoming High School notable alumni?? AP is in Univ Cincinnati and Utah State Univ. rightfully so. But what redneck censor kicked the King of Science out of his own High School???

AP, King of Science

For about 6 years straight, my name was on the Notable Alumnus list of Wyoming High School (Ohio), University of Cincinnati, and Utah State University, as per my Wikipedia entry Usenet Notable.

The Univ of Cincinnati and Utah State Univ citations are still there as they were all along.

But apparently several years back, at least 3 years, some vandal tore down AP's Wyoming High School citation of Notable.

It could have been someone inside Wikipedia-- a gut filled hatred censor. It could have been Jan Burse when he was on his vandal spree. It could have been hate monger stalkers like Kibo, Dan Christensen who deleted it. Or it could have been someone inside Wyoming High School with massive prejudice. Or just some outside punk with hatred. Who knows?????? I searched the editing, but found nothing. Maybe Dan can search the editing and pinpoint who it was and when it was, that I was deleted.

AP

🦴👤 of Math and 💩👤 of Physics Archimedes "Kim Jong Un's lackey"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:

> Who is the redneck censor blocking AP, King of Science from Wyoming High School notable alumni?? AP is in Univ Cincinnati and Utah State Univ. rightfully so. But what redneck censor kicked the King of Science out of his own High School???
>
> I was looking to see what redneck censor had kicked AP off of his own High School-- Notable Persons.

It's because you're just not notable. Simply being a kook isn't enough
to make one notable. Nor do self-awarded titles make one notable. You
have to actually accomplish something significant to become notable.

> AP, Drag Queen of Science

Kibo> I want to fuck her corpseNSF Dorothy E Aronson, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Dr.Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, Brian Stone, James S Olvestad

Kibo Parry's nymshifter Moroney-Volney open hate line of 30 year nonstop stalking
On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 3:14:40 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney (open hate line by James Kibo Parry 30 year paid stalker) wrote:
>"Drag Queen of Science"
> I want to fuck her corpse
>
> Not again!
>
> I want to fuck her corpse
>
> You already said that.
>
> I want to fuck her corpse
>
> You're really sick, Pluto!
>
> wanting to fuck her corpse
>
> I want to fuck her corpse
>
> I want to fuck her corpse

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day
NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Olvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua


> "I want to fuck her corpse" sci.math--Sergio,Susanne Schneider,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.
>
> Wolfgang Mueckenheim is this taking place at Stanford Univ and we should ask Earle Jones which building or is it in Germany at Hilbert's Hotel????
>
>
> WM,Susanne Schneider,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 628 "Questions on .."
> 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 Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > Enjoy!
>
> 
>
> WM
> , …
> Sergi o
> 628
>
> unread,
> Question on Hilbert's Hotel.
> On 1/17/2023 3:48 AM, WM wrote: > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Dienstag, 17. Januar 2023 um 01:37:46
> 10:19 PM
>
>
> 
>
> WM
> , …
> Ben Bacarisse
> 46
>
> unread,
> Equal Rights!
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.t...@gmail.com> writes: > 2 is missing
> 9:33 PM
>
> 
> > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:14:29 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > >"certifiably insane"
> > > > > > Necrophile
> > > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You already said that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 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.
> > Or did Kibo Parry M. fail out of Rensselaer Polytech for he is brain dead in geometry, cannot see nor understand a slant cut of cylinder is a ellipse, but never a cone.
> > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> > >
> > >
> > > Some preliminaries:
> > >
> > > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > > in the proof:
> > >
> > > ^ x
> > > |
> > > -+- <= x=h
> > > .' | `.
> > > . | .
> > > | | |
> > > ' | '
> > > `. | .'
> > > y <----------+ <= x=0
> > >
> > > Cone (side view):
> > > .
> > > /|\
> > > / | \
> > > /b | \
> > > /---+---' <= x = h
> > > / |' \
> > > / ' | \
> > > / ' | \
> > > x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> > > / a | \
> > >
> > > Proof:
> > >
> > > r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
> > >
> > > y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> > >
> > > Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> > >
> > > qed
> > >
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 2:58:49 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 9/29/2022 10:19 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >"antiscience"
> >> I want to fuck her corpse
> > >
> > > Once again, it looks like I triggered another autism meltdown by
> >is into necrophilia... Wow! Talk about learning
> > something new everyday! ;^o
> 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
>
> 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)
> #12-3, 24th published book
>
>
> World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.
>
> Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07NMV8NQQ
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1241 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 60 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
> #12-4, 28th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
> Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.
>
> Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PZ2Y5RV
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 23, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1183 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 34 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
>
>
> #12-5, 6th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
> Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
>
> Preface: Truthful proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
>
> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
>
> Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
>
> As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> • Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)
>
>
>
>
>
> #12-6, 19th published book
>
> World's First Proof of Collatz Conjecture// Math proof series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 19th published book.
>
> Preface: Old Math's Collatz conjecture, 1937, was this: If you land on an even number, you divide by 2 until you come to an odd number. If you come to or land on an odd number, you do a 3N+1 then proceed further. The conjecture then says that no matter what number you start with, it ends up being 1.
>
> What the Collatz proof of math tells us, is that so very often mathematicians pose a conjecture in which their initial formulation of the conjecture is murky, obfuscation and poorly designed statement. Such poorly designed statements can never be proven true or false. An example that comes to mind of another poorly designed conjecture is the No Odd Perfect Conjecture, in which the statement is obfuscation of factors. So for the odd number 9, is it 1+3, or is it 1+ 3 + 3. So when a mathematics conjecture is full of obfuscation and error in the statement, then these type of conjectures never have a proof. And takes a person with a logical mind to fix and straighten out the conjecture statement and then provide a proof, thereof.
>
> A return to my Collatz proof in 2022, allowed me a second proof of Collatz with only 3N+1, in a mathematical induction proof, using the Decimal Grid System of Numbers. The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid System Numbers and this allows a Collatz proof of stand alone 3N+1.
>
> Cover picture: when I think of Collatz, I think of a slide, a slide down and so my French curve is the best slide I can think of, other than a slide-ruler, but a slide ruler is slide across.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PS98K5H
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1990 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 113 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #212,131 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #4 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #9 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #32 in Number Theory (Books)
>
>
>
>
> #12-7, 20th published book
> World's First Proofs that No Perfect Cuboid Exists// Math proof series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Someone on the Internet posed the unproven No Perfect Cuboid, and so I took up the challenge. I am usually a sucker for geometry riddles, more so than number theory. So I obliged. Then by 2014 I proved the matter and looking back at it now in 2019, I really really do not see what all the fuss was about-- that it was not that hard not hard at all. You just have to look carefully at sets of 4 right triangles and find an Impossibility Construction, why you cannot have those 4 right triangles all with positive integer numbers for their 3 sides. But the proof method is so hugely important in math-- impossibility of construction. And, please, do not confuse that method with Reductio Ad Absurdum, for RAA is not a valid proof method in mathematics (see my logic book on RAA). But, the method of Impossible Construction, although it might look like RAA, is totally different and fully valid in all aspects.
>
> But now, in hindsight in March 2019, writing this up, I see a very close connection of No Perfect Cuboid to that of Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem with its equation of A^x + B^y = C^z and the way I proved Generalized FLT was with "condensed rectangles" and the No Perfect Cuboid is a 3rd Dimension object but it is 4 rectangles of 4 right triangles we inspect. And we can pursue that connection between Generalized FLT and No Perfect Cuboid further, but not now.
>
> Cover Picture: Is that of 4 rectangular boxes, 2 of which are cubes sitting atop a book page of the Cubic Set for the Transuranium Atoms, from the textbook "The Elements Beyond Uranium" , Seaborg, Loveland, 1990. I am always looking for connections.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PMZQNNT
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1382 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 61 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #12-8, 21st published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Mathematics Oldest Unsolved Problems: No Odd Perfect and Finiteness of Perfect Numbers // Math proof series, book 8 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 26Apr2021. And this is AP's 21st published book.
>
> Preface: Now my history with these proofs goes back to 1991 to 1993, and have been finessing the proofs ever since. Some math proofs just nag nag and nag you. They just cannot be settled still. Their proof is a tiny tiny sliver of impossibility that is easily overlooked. Like an optical illusion that you are mislead into, or like those pictures where you look at it one way and you see a young lady and another way you see a very old lady.
>
> Now the No Odd Perfect Number is not a important proof in mathematics but mostly a spectacle for it does not teach much beyond making proper correct definitions. And murky definitions is what held a proof of No Odd Perfect, other than 1, held it back. The murky definition of factors, do we include 1 or not include, for example the odd number 9, do we include 3 twice or once for that we have 1* 9 and we have 3*3 and Old Math looked at that as 1 + 3, whereas I would look at that as 1 + 3 + 3. So when you have messy definitions, murky and messy, of course no proof will be found in over 2,000 years.
>
> Cover Picture: Shows our modern day new reality of the situation where the definition of "perfect" was a Ancient Greek idea, steeped in murky messy idea of factors and when to add factors, that no longer is suitable for mathematics.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PN1CPRP
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1534 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 28 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
> #12-9, 15th published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Infinitude of Twin-Primes, and Polignac Proved // Math proof series, book 9 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Circa 1991-1993, I gave an Old Math style of proof for the Infinitude of Twin Primes, modeling my proof as to a Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof. But then came year 2009 when I found the way to make Infinity concept well-defined. Up until 2009, no-one in the world had a clear precise definition or understanding of what "infinity" was or what it means. It means a borderline between finite and infinite and the way to find this borderline is to use the Tractrix when the unit-tractrix area catches up with the area inside a unit circle is the infinity borderline and it happens to be when pi digits have three zeroes in a row, does the tractrix area equal the circle area-- hence, we reached infinity border and beyond are infinite numbers, no longer finite numbers. What that discovery does for proofs of infinitude is change all those proofs dramatically. And here in Twin-Primes and Polignac I show the reader how modern day New Math proves infinitude of any set of numbers.
>
>
> Cover Picture: Is a picture of the first five twin-primes.
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PMY1YWB
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 15, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1642 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 9 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
> #12-10, 16th published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Goldbach, Legendre, Staircase Conjectures// Math proof series, book 10 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> AP proved the Goldbach Conjecture starting 1993 where the Algebra Columns is the bedrock-key of the proof involved. The Algebra Column Array is the tool and no-one was going to prove Goldbach unless they had that tool, which the 2014 post of mine makes the array tool crystal clear. So starting 1993, I posted to sci.math about Array or Algebra Column which as a tool would render all proofs of this nature. The Goldbach conjecture historically dates back to 1742, and the Legendre conjecture dates 1752-1833. The Staircase conjecture is a wholly new conjecture proposed by AP circa 2016.
>
> Cover: Is a Algebra Column Array sequence starting with 6 Array and then 8 Array.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PS6MR48
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 15, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1740 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 36 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #148,852 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #4 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> #38 in Number Theory (Books)
> #7 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> 

>
> #12-11, 25th published book
>
> Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis // Math proof series, book 11 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 31Oct2021. This is AP's 25th book of science.
>
> Preface: The Riemann Hypothesis was a conjecture never able to be proven and for good reason, for it was the last symptom of a rampant disease inside of mathematics. Old Math did not have the true numbers that compose mathematics. Old Math had a rag-tag ugly collection of fake numbers with their Reals, their Negative numbers compounded with Rationals compounded with Irrationals and then adding on the Imaginary. These are fake numbers, when the true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers. Because Old Math uses fake numbers, is the reason that Riemann Hypothesis just languished, languished and languished. You cannot prove something riddled in fakery. Below I demonstrate why having fake numbers in math, creates fake proofs, fake theorems, and creates a conjecture that can never be proven.
>
> Cover picture: Riemann Hypothesis deals with fake numbers of mathematics. When what is needed is the true numbers-- Decimal Grid Numbers. We learn Decimal Grid Numbers when very young, when just toddlers, wood counting blocks. All the true numbers of mathematics come from Mathematical Induction-- counting. Mathematical Induction is utterly absent in the Riemann Hypothesis, when it should be central to the hypothesis.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PVDS1RC
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1475 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 58 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Best Sellers Rank: #5,118,638 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #643 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #1,398 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #3,559 in Number Theory (Books)
> 

> #12-12, 152nd published book
> The 6th Regular Polyhedron-- hexagonal faces at infinity is nonexistent // Math proof series, book 12
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
> Last revision was 2Aug2022. And this is AP's 152nd published book of science.
>
> Preface: I started this book in September 2021, and not until July 2022, did I uncover my gross error-- the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron. I so much wanted there to be a 6th regular polyhedron and looking in the Internet, the world wide web, are many images of a cell of 7 regular hexagons, a central hexagon surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. Plenty of these images, but the tipping point for me is the Goldberg polyhedron, here again the cell of 7 regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. And so, using that 7 cell as supporting evidence of the existence of a 6th Regular Polyhedron, AP proceeds to publish such. Even though I knew of the University of Utah beware caution web page stating that a vertex of 3 regular polygons is an angle of 120 +120+120= 360 degrees and thus laying flat as a plane, no bending, hence no tiling a sphere.
>
> So I published this book in Sept2021, and not until July2022, needing a coordinate system of points on a sphere for my Ecology book "_Complete Ecology_ with Generalized Faraday Law and revised food chain // Ecology science".. That I finally realize my mistake-- Uof U completely correct, and why on Earth did I want to believe Goldberg polyhedron and all those fake geometry images of regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. This is a massive computer problem of our times, in that it is super easy to make optical illusions in geometry and filling web sites with fake geometry images.
>
> Well, AP was fooled and fell victim to computer graphics showing where a sphere surface tiling of a central regular hexagon and surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons. There are many pictures and images of a sphere tiling on the Internet of 7 regular hexagons, a central one and surrounded and encircled by 6 more regular hexagons. There is even geometry of what is called Goldberg polyhedron with more pictures and images, all deceptive, all wrong. So this book ends up about the theme of how deceptive computer imaging can be, and not what AP hoped for-- the existence of a regular polyhedra with regular hexagon faces.
>
> If it were true that a cell of 7 regular polygons has a bend to it, so that it can eventually circle around a sphere surface, then my first publication of this book would have been true. But instead, the truth is the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron.
>
>
> Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of a soccer ball of 20 hexagons, 12 pentagons; and a glass ball covered by netting of tiny hexagons. Both objects I use in experiments of trying to prove the 6th Regular Polyhedron only it is nonexistent as I eventually found in July 2022.
>
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09K4PWKVK
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 21, 2021
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 853 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 91 pages