Message-ID:

Insufficient facts always invite danger. -- Spock, "Space Seed", stardate 3141.9

tech / sci.math / Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!

Feldhase,Annalena Baerbock,Olaf Scholz,WM,Fritz Feldhase, William, FromTheRafters,Jim Burns, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why so stupid are all these gals & chaps, that none can even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Their minds in math are dumpster minds...

WM's profile photo
WM
, …
Fritz Feldhase
318
unread,
An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
3:04 PM


> 4- Annalena and Olaf, why cannot the spammers Feldhase and Wolfgang Mueckenheim do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus rather than 20 years of endless mindless dark numbers bullshit??? (Ku-schiezza). Or is that how Germany treats their terminal insane-- hand them a Usenet connection and say "spam spam spam" (bombardieren)
>
> WM picture profile
> WM
> William
> 307
> 11:39AM
> 
> > An inconsistency between...
> > > 
> > > WM's profile photo
> > > WM
> > > , …
> > > Fritz Feldhase
> > > 193
> > > unread,
> > > The testimony of unit fractions
> > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:44:51 PM UTC+1, WM wrote: > Almost all natural numbers are
> > > 11:01 AM
> > > 
> > > > WM
> > > > , …
> > > > Ben Bacarisse
> > > > 165
> > > > unread,
> > > > The testimony of unit fractions
> > > > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes: > On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 9:28:
> > > > 6:57 PM
> > > > 
> > > My 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)

Bettina Stark-Watzinger,Jens Brandenburg,Thomas Sattelberger,Kornelia Haugg, Judith Pirscher,Annalena Baerbock,Olaf Scholz,WM,Fritz Feldhase, William, FromTheRafters,Jim Burns, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why so stupid are all these gals & chaps, that none can even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Their minds in math are dumpster minds..
>
>
>
> WM's profile photo
> WM
> , …
> Fritz Feldhase
> 318
> unread,
> An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
> 3:04 PM
> 
>
>
>
> > 4- Annalena and Olaf, why cannot the spammers Feldhase and Wolfgang Mueckenheim do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus rather than 20 years of endless mindless dark numbers bullshit??? (Ku-schiezza). Or is that how Germany treats their terminal insane-- hand them a Usenet connection and say "spam spam spam" (bombardieren)
> >
> > WM picture profile
> > WM
> > William
> > 307
> > 11:39AM
> > 
> > > An inconsistency between...
> > > > 
> > > > WM's profile photo
> > > > WM
> > > > , …
> > > > Fritz Feldhase
> > > > 193
> > > > unread,
> > > > The testimony of unit fractions
> > > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:44:51 PM UTC+1, WM wrote: > Almost all natural numbers are
> > > > 11:01 AM
> > > > 
> > > > > WM
> > > > > , …
> > > > > Ben Bacarisse
> > > > > 165
> > > > > unread,
> > > > > The testimony of unit fractions
> > > > > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes: > On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 9:28:
> > > > > 6:57 PM
> > > > > 
> > > > My 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)

Beijing▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Beijing and Shanghai with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 7:50:49 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Putin's Stooge"

Graham Cooper & Ben Bacarisse (of the fine Bacarisse cheeses) witnessed the bomb blast and crater from their balcony apartments in Australia.

Graham Cooper picture profile
Graham Cooper

Ben Bacarisse
28
3:31PM
****(T F ?) ^ N

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
>"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"

Was that the problem Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, not enough bolts to tighten down Beijing from the insane Putin??

Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'An, Suzhou, Harbin, Shenyang, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Dongguan, Foshan, Dalian, Jinan, Changchun, Hefei

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 1:16:55 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "Imp of Science"
>"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"

Moscow█۞█ blackout, knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
_drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity

Ukraine cannot win a war if it has nada, no, zero offense, it needs to knock out Russian electric lines. And the Baltic states can help.
Knock out electricity in
Novosibirsk
Yekaterinburg
Novgorod
Samara
Omsk
Kazan
Rostov-na-Donu
Chelyabinsk
Ufa
Perm

_Every Russian missile fired into Ukraine met with a drone from Ukraine knocking out Moscow electric power lines

_Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity

NO ONE CAN WIN A FIGHT UNLESS THEY HAVE AN OFFENSE!!!!!!

_No one can win a fight or war without any offense, West, Biden give Ukraine drones that knock out electricity inside Russia

_End the Ukraine war by April 2023 as the Russian people depose the dictator


_rolling electric blackouts and give Iran to Iraq-- a blooming democracy, not a stupid dictator

_And as the Baby Xi grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size of Outer Manchuria, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen Old China.

_Xi has 1,000 divisions on Vladivostok border ready to swoop in and reclaim the stolen land of Outer Manchuria. See reconnaissance photo above of 1,000 divisions.

NATO and the West has just two good options here, for Putin should have been removed in 2006 with Litvinenko poisoning. Now the insane Putin can poison the entire world with a nuclear war. Putin needed to go in 2006, for insanity just gets worse and worse.

Either
(1) give Ukraine drones to knock out electric power in Moscow and beyond
Or
(2) give Ukraine NATO membership and tell Russia to clear out in a week or NATO forces go in and clear them out.

Of course, every day Putin and Russia needs reminding that if he presses nuclear buttons or nuclear bomb on Ukraine that Russia will be a nuclear ash pile before the day is out.

What should have been done in 2006, unfortunately that delay to 2022. Same can be said of Hitler-- he should have been removed in the early 1930s before his insanity got going.

& wrote:
> _And as the Baby Xi grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer
> Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi
> learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size
> of Outer Manchuria, Emperor Qing's homeland, now occupied by homeless Russians drinking vodka, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders
> 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen

> > Why Putin is 2X smarter than Xi as dictators// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, not petty dictators
> > 2m views
> >
> >
> 2> If Putin pushes nuclear buttons, he drags down China along with Russia into a nuclear ash waste pile, and this means Xi is a inferior junior partner to Putin. Putin will drag down Xi's China, never the reverse.
> >
> 2> So, one can look at the present situation on Earth and ask several logical questions about the 2 dictators of Putin's Russia and China's Xi.
> >
> > It is little wonder that both Russia and China dictators are combative towards the West. Because dictators never want to give up on power but stay in power all their life long. So they oppose the West because the West has grown up to democracy-- let the people have power, not one single idiot having power all his life time.
> >
> > Naturally, Putin will want to keep the Russian people suppressed and have Russia be a second rate government as a dictator. Same goes for China-- they never want to give up power so the people themselves choose their leader.
> >
> > But can we find differences in Putin and Xi themselves? Well in the West we call the Chinese inscrutable-- meaning -- little logical commonsense. And is this a valid description?? Yes of course, considering that Russia had stolen the lands of Outer Manchuria, some 28 times larger of a land mass than is Taiwan island. Yet there is Xi, spending so much time on wanting to invade Taiwan, when it is Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok (Haishenwai) that he should be focusing attention upon. And while Putin is distracted with Ukraine, is the time for Xi to recapture Outer Manchuria, the Qing dynasty empire, Qing's Manchurian homeland.
> >
> > What does Xi do instead??? He focuses on Taiwan and befriends Russia. Why, at this rate, if Russia takes Inner Manchuria, we can expect Xi and the Chinese Communist Party to become even more loving of Russia for stealing more land of China.
> >
> > And there is Xi, whose China has become rich with trading with the West, yet every day, Xi foaming at the mouth in hatred of the West.
> >
> > So yes, Putin is 2X smarter as a dictator than is Xi, as if Putin has Xi in his side pocket.
> >
> > Is there some scientific explanation as to why Xi is 2X dumber than Putin?? Perhaps, in that China is densely populated and the air pollution over all of China is worse than most countries. That Xi probably has 1/2 of his brain filled with CO and CO2 isomers and lead, and mercury and nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide from just living in that air polluted hellhole of Beijing. Xi studied chemistry and should know this. Whereas Putin likely detox...s every evening with breathing in pure oxygen at his residence and takes oxygen breathing tanks to office and work. This easily can explain the light-headed reasoning that Xi and his foreign diplomats Wang Yi display, where Putin plays them like a chess game, --- checkmate in 7 moves.
> >
> > This explains why Xi hates the West for not stealing any Chinese lands and making China rich in trade, while loving Putin for stealing Outer Manchuria, and proposing having Russia push nuclear buttons, making both Russia and China a nuclear waste site after ICBMs wipe China off the map.
> >
> > Xi's brain is full of air pollution toxins from the nasty Chinese air. They still build a new coal fired plant in China every day. The air in China is the worst air in the entire world.
> >
> > Why Putin is 2X smarter than Xi as dictators// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, not petty dictators.

> > > 2/1, AP tards:
> > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/2, AP tards:
> > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/3, AP tards:
> > > > Every Russian missile fired into Ukraine met with a drone from Ukraine knocking out Moscow electric power lines
> > > >
> > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/4, AP tards:
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/9 (vacation?), AP tards:
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/9, AP tards (again):
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/10, AP tards:
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/11, AP tards:
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/12, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/12, AP tards again:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/13, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/14, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/15, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/16, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/17, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/18, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/19, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/20, AP tards:
> > >
> > > > Electricity out Novosibirsk &Volgograd█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/22, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/23, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/24, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/25, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/26, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity

Click here to read the complete article

Beijing▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shanghai with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person

Kibo, can you not let WM & Ben Bacarisse finish their spam before sending a Sarmat?

WM picture profile
WM

Ben Bacarisse
44
2:47PM
My results on the set of unit fractions..

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 7:50:49 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "Putin's Stooge"
> you want to do homosexual acts with Mueckenheim and
> others?
> And please take it to your local gay bar, or Grindr or something. Quit
> trying to make these groups into a gay pickup joint!
>

MitchR, how many joules in a Satan II ?

MitchR, is a mushroom cloud zero aether? How about your spam, is that negative aether?

Pentcho Valev spamming as China under Russian Sarmats. Does it remind Pentcho of Nero fiddling while Rome burnt???
Pete Olcott where is your spam halting machine when China needs it the most??????

Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'An, Suzhou, Harbin, Shenyang, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Dongguan, Foshan, Dalian, Jinan, Changchun, Hefei

Shenzhen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shenzhen with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person

Is Pete Olcott in his Halting Problem, halting the vaporization of Wuhan by Putin's Russia???

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
>"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"



Ukraine cannot win a war if it has nada, no, zero offense, it needs to knock out Russian electric lines. And the Baltic states can help.
Knock out electricity in
Novosibirsk
Yekaterinburg
Novgorod
Samara
Omsk
Kazan
Rostov-na-Donu
Chelyabinsk
Ufa
Perm

_Every Russian missile fired into Ukraine met with a drone from Ukraine knocking out Moscow electric power lines

_Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity

NO ONE CAN WIN A FIGHT UNLESS THEY HAVE AN OFFENSE!!!!!!

_No one can win a fight or war without any offense, West, Biden give Ukraine drones that knock out electricity inside Russia

_End the Ukraine war by March 2023 as the Russian people depose the dictator

_rolling electric blackouts and give Iran to Iraq-- a blooming democracy, not a stupid dictator

_Xi has 1,000 divisions on Vladivostok border ready to swoop in and reclaim the stolen land of Outer Manchuria. See reconnaissance photo above of 1,000 divisions.

Either
(1) give Ukraine drones to knock out electric power in Moscow and beyond
Or
(2) give Ukraine NATO membership and tell Russia to clear out in a week or NATO forces go in and clear them out.

Of course, every day Putin and Russia needs reminding that if he presses nuclear buttons or nuclear bomb on Ukraine that Russia will be a nuclear ash pile before the day is out.

What should have been done in 2006, unfortunately that delay to 2022. Same can be said of Hitler-- he should have been removed in the early 1930s before his insanity got going.


> > > 2/1, AP tards:
> > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/2, AP tards:
> > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/3, AP tards:
> > > > Every Russian missile fired into Ukraine met with a drone from Ukraine knocking out Moscow electric power lines
> > > >
> > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/4, AP tards:
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/9 (vacation?), AP tards:
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/9, AP tards (again):
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/10, AP tards:
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/11, AP tards:
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/12, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/12, AP tards again:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/13, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/14, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/15, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/16, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/17, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/18, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/19, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/20, AP tards:
> > >
> > > > Electricity out Novosibirsk &Volgograd█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/22, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/23, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/24, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/25, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/26, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█

> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity

Click here to read the complete article

Kibo, can you not let WM & Ben Bacarisse finish their spam before sending a Sarmat?

WM picture profile
WM

Ben Bacarisse
44
2:47PM
My results on the set of unit fractions..

MitchR, how many joules in a Satan II ?

MitchR, is a mushroom cloud zero aether? How about your spam, is that negative aether?

Pentcho Valev spamming as China under Russian Sarmats. Does it remind Pentcho of Nero fiddling while Rome burnt???
Pete Olcott where is your spam halting machine when China needs it the most??????

Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'An, Suzhou, Harbin, Shenyang, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Dongguan, Foshan, Dalian, Jinan, Changchun, Hefei

Is Pete Olcott in his Halting Problem, halting the vaporization of Wuhan by Putin's Russia???

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
>"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"

_Every Russian missile fired into Ukraine met with a drone from Ukraine knocking out Moscow electric power lines

_Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity

NO ONE CAN WIN A FIGHT UNLESS THEY HAVE AN OFFENSE!!!!!!

_No one can win a fight or war without any offense, West, Biden give Ukraine drones that knock out electricity inside Russia

_End the Ukraine war by March 2023 as the Russian people depose the dictator


_rolling electric blackouts and give Iran to Iraq-- a blooming democracy, not a stupid dictator

_Xi has 1,000 divisions on Vladivostok border ready to swoop in and reclaim the stolen land of Outer Manchuria. See reconnaissance photo above of 1,000 divisions.

Either
(1) give Ukraine drones to knock out electric power in Moscow and beyond
Or
(2) give Ukraine NATO membership and tell Russia to clear out in a week or NATO forces go in and clear them out.

Of course, every day Putin and Russia needs reminding that if he presses nuclear buttons or nuclear bomb on Ukraine that Russia will be a nuclear ash pile before the day is out.

What should have been done in 2006, unfortunately that delay to 2022. Same can be said of Hitler-- he should have been removed in the early 1930s before his insanity got going.

Click here to read the complete article

Terence Tao,Andrew Wiles, Ruth Charney, Thomas Hales,John Stillwell, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, probably because these math failures cannot even recognize and admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.

Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
>
> Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
>
> 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 sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>
>
> Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
>
> 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)

Click here to read the complete article

Beijing▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Beijing with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person

Pentcho Valev spamming as China under Russian Sarmats. Does it remind Pentcho of Nero fiddling while Rome burnt???
Pete Olcott where is your spam halting machine when China needs it the most??????

Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'An, Suzhou, Harbin, Shenyang, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Dongguan, Foshan, Dalian, Jinan, Changchun, Hefei

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
>"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"




Ukraine cannot win a war if it has nada, no, zero offense, it needs to knock out Russian electric lines. And the Baltic states can help.
Knock out electricity in
Novosibirsk
Yekaterinburg
Novgorod
Samara
Omsk
Kazan
Rostov-na-Donu
Chelyabinsk
Ufa
Perm

_Every Russian missile fired into Ukraine met with a drone from Ukraine knocking out Moscow electric power lines

_Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity

NO ONE CAN WIN A FIGHT UNLESS THEY HAVE AN OFFENSE!!!!!!

_No one can win a fight or war without any offense, West, Biden give Ukraine drones that knock out electricity inside Russia

_End the Ukraine war by March 2023 as the Russian people depose the dictator

_rolling electric blackouts and give Iran to Iraq-- a blooming democracy, not a stupid dictator

_Xi has 1,000 divisions on Vladivostok border ready to swoop in and reclaim the stolen land of Outer Manchuria. See reconnaissance photo above of 1,000 divisions.

Either
(1) give Ukraine drones to knock out electric power in Moscow and beyond
Or
(2) give Ukraine NATO membership and tell Russia to clear out in a week or NATO forces go in and clear them out.

Of course, every day Putin and Russia needs reminding that if he presses nuclear buttons or nuclear bomb on Ukraine that Russia will be a nuclear ash pile before the day is out.

What should have been done in 2006, unfortunately that delay to 2022. Same can be said of Hitler-- he should have been removed in the early 1930s before his insanity got going.

Click here to read the complete article

Dr Tao,Andrew Wiles, Ruth Charney, Thomas Hales,John Stillwell, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, probably because these math failures cannot even recognize and admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.


WM's profile photo
WM
, …
Jim Burns
591
unread,
An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
5:02 PM


> Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
> >
> > Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> > Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
> >
> > 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 sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> >
> >
> > Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> > John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
> >
> > 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)

Click here to read the complete article

Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles, Ruth Charney, Thomas Hales,John Stillwell, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, probably because these math failures cannot even recognize and admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.


WM's profile photo
WM
, …
William
603
unread,
An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
3:06 PM



WM's profile photo
WM
, …
Jim Burns
591
unread,
An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
5:02 PM



Click here to read the complete article

Dr.Wiles,Pete Olcott,Flibble,Richard Damon,Dr.Tao,Dr.Hales, Ruth Charney, Thomas Hales,John Stillwell, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, probably because these math failures cannot even recognize and admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.

>
>
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 11:05:24 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> > I am simply using valid deduction from provable true premises. I created
> > the whole x86utm operating system so that I could fully encode an actual
> > halt decider that does decide its input correctly.
> >
>
>
>
> 
> Olcott picture profile
> Olcott
> Richard Damon
> 36
> 4:27 PM
> A proof of G in F....
> 
> Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
> > >
> > > Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> > > Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
> > >
> > > 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 sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> > >
> > >
> > > Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> > > John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
> My 5th published book
>
> Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
> Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> Preface:
> First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
>
> The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
>
> My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
>
> Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
>
> Product details
> File Size: 773 KB
> Print Length: 72 pages
> Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray:  Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

> > > 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)

Click here to read the complete article

Dr.Wiles,Flibble,Pete Olcott,Richard Damon,Dr.Tao,Dr.Hales, Ruth Charney, Thomas Hales,John Stillwell, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, probably because these math failures cannot even recognize and admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.

W.Mueckenheim 20 years of spam with his worthless "dark numbers" b.s.

Mr. Flibble picture profile
Mr. Flibble
Richard Damon
8 10:47 PM
Halting Problem...

> > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 11:05:24 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> > > I am simply using valid deduction from provable true premises. I created
> > > the whole x86utm operating system so that I could fully encode an actual
> > > halt decider that does decide its input correctly.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > Olcott picture profile
> > Olcott
> > Richard Damon
> > 36
> > 4:27 PM
> > A proof of G in F....
> > 
> > Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> > > > Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
> > > >
> > > > 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 sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M.. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> > > > John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
> > My 5th published book
> >
> > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> >
> > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science..
> > Preface:
> > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> >
> > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> >
> > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> >
> > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> >
> > Product details
> > File Size: 773 KB
> > Print Length: 72 pages
> > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > Language: English
> > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > X-Ray:  Not Enabled
> > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > Lending: Enabled
> > Screen Reader: Supported
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> 
> > > > 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)

Click here to read the complete article

Dr.Charney,William,WM,Dr.Tao,Dr.Hales, Dr.Wiles,Ruth Charney, Thomas Hales,John Stillwell, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, probably because these math failures cannot even recognize and admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.
> > WM picture profile
> > WM
> > William
> > 609
> > 10:08 AM
> > An inconsistency....
> > 
> > Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> > > > Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
> > > >
> > > > 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 sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M.. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> > > > John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
> > My 5th published book
> >
> > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> >
> > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science..
> > Preface:
> > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> >
> > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> >
> > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> >
> > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> >
> > Product details
> > File Size: 773 KB
> > Print Length: 72 pages
> > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > Language: English
> > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > X-Ray:  Not Enabled
> > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > Lending: Enabled
> > Screen Reader: Supported
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> 
> > > > 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)

Click here to read the complete article

Berlin,Munich▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Beijing with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 5:45:18 PM UTC-6, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 2:38:44 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 2Moscow█۞█ blackout, knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█

Jeffrey are these Sarmat's have a spam payload from WM, William, Fritz Feldhase???

Angel, Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney thinks you can bolt down a city to protect it from Russian Sarmat
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
>"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"

Yan Wyck reporting in China news the beast criminals of Russia should have been tried in International Court of Justice for war crimes before vaporizing Chinese cities as Putin pushes nuclear buttons.

Pentcho Valev spamming as China under Russian Sarmats. Does it remind Pentcho of Nero fiddling while Rome burnt???

Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'An, Suzhou, Harbin, Shenyang, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Dongguan, Foshan, Dalian, Jinan, Changchun, Hefei

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
>"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 1:16:55 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "Imp of Science"
>"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"




& wrote:
> _And as the Baby Xi grew up, surrounded by concubines, from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer


> Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi
> learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size
> of Outer Manchuria, Emperor Qing's homeland, now occupied by homeless Russians drinking vodka, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders
> 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen

> > Why Putin is 2X smarter than Xi as dictators// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, not petty dictators
> > 2m views
> >
> >
3> If Putin pushes nuclear buttons, he drags down China along with Russia into a nuclear ash waste pile, and this means Xi is a inferior junior partner to Putin. Putin will drag down Xi's China, never the reverse.
> >
4> So, one can look at the present situation on Earth and ask several logical questions about the 2 dictators of Putin's Russia and China's Xi.
> >
> > It is little wonder that both Russia and China dictators are combative towards the West. Because dictators never want to give up on power but stay in power all their life long. So they oppose the West because the West has grown up to democracy-- let the people have power, not one single idiot having power all his life time.
> >
5 > Naturally, Putin will want to keep the Russian people suppressed and have Russia be a second rate government as a dictator. Same goes for China-- they never want to give up power so the people themselves choose their leader.
> >
> > But can we find differences in Putin and Xi themselves? Well in the West we call the Chinese inscrutable-- meaning -- little logical commonsense. And is this a valid description?? Yes of course, considering that Russia had stolen the lands of Outer Manchuria, some 28 times larger of a land mass than is Taiwan island. Yet there is Xi, spending so much time on wanting to invade Taiwan, when it is Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok (Haishenwai) that he should be focusing attention upon. And while Putin is distracted with Ukraine, is the time for Xi to recapture Outer Manchuria, the Qing dynasty empire, Qing's Manchurian homeland.
> >
> > What does Xi do instead??? He focuses on Taiwan and befriends Russia. Why, at this rate, if Russia takes Inner Manchuria, we can expect Xi and the Chinese Communist Party to become even more loving of Russia for stealing more land of China.
> >
> > And there is Xi, whose China has become rich with trading with the West, yet every day, Xi foaming at the mouth in hatred of the West.
> >
> > So yes, Putin is 2X smarter as a dictator than is Xi, as if Putin has Xi in his side pocket.
> >
> > Is there some scientific explanation as to why Xi is 2X dumber than Putin?? Perhaps, in that China is densely populated and the air pollution over all of China is worse than most countries. That Xi probably has 1/2 of his brain filled with CO and CO2 isomers and lead, and mercury and nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide from just living in that air polluted hellhole of Beijing. Xi studied chemistry and should know this. Whereas Putin likely detox...s every evening with breathing in pure oxygen at his residence and takes oxygen breathing tanks to office and work. This easily can explain the light-headed reasoning that Xi and his foreign diplomats Wang Yi display, where Putin plays them like a chess game, --- checkmate in 7 moves.
> >
> > This explains why Xi hates the West for not stealing any Chinese lands and making China rich in trade, while loving Putin for stealing Outer Manchuria, and proposing having Russia push nuclear buttons, making both Russia and China a nuclear waste site after ICBMs wipe China off the map.
> >
> > Xi's brain is full of air pollution toxins from the nasty Chinese air. They still build a new coal fired plant in China every day. The air in China is the worst air in the entire world.
> >
6 > Why Putin is 2X smarter than Xi as dictators// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, not petty dictators.




> > > 2/1, AP tards:
> > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/2, AP tards:
> > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/3, AP tards:
> > > > Every Russian missile fired into Ukraine met with a drone from Ukraine knocking out Moscow electric power lines
> > > >
> > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/4, AP tards:
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/9 (vacation?), AP tards:
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/9, AP tards (again):
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/10, AP tards:
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/11, AP tards:
> > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/12, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/12, AP tards again:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/13, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/14, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/15, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/16, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/17, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/18, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/19, AP tards:
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/20, AP tards:
> > >
> > > > Electricity out Novosibirsk &Volgograd█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/22, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/23, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/24, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/25, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > > 2/26, AP tards:
> > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█

> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity

Click here to read the complete article

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:53 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Berlin,Munich▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Beijing with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 5:45:18 PM UTC-6, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 2:38:44 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > 2Moscow█۞█ blackout, knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
>
> Jeffrey are these Sarmat's have a spam payload from WM, William, Fritz Feldhase???
>
> Angel, Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney thinks you can bolt down a city to protect it from Russian Sarmat
> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> Yan Wyck reporting in China news the beast criminals of Russia should have been tried in International Court of Justice for war crimes before vaporizing Chinese cities as Putin pushes nuclear buttons.
>
>
> Pentcho Valev spamming as China under Russian Sarmats. Does it remind Pentcho of Nero fiddling while Rome burnt???
>
>
> Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'An, Suzhou, Harbin, Shenyang, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Dongguan, Foshan, Dalian, Jinan, Changchun, Hefei
>
> Shenzhen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shenzhen with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
>
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 1:16:55 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "Imp of Science"
> >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> & wrote:
> > _And as the Baby Xi grew up, surrounded by concubines, from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer
> 
> 
> > Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi
> > learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size
> > of Outer Manchuria, Emperor Qing's homeland, now occupied by homeless Russians drinking vodka, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders
> > 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen
>
>
> > > Why Putin is 2X smarter than Xi as dictators// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, not petty dictators
> > > 2m views
> > >
> > >
> 3> If Putin pushes nuclear buttons, he drags down China along with Russia into a nuclear ash waste pile, and this means Xi is a inferior junior partner to Putin. Putin will drag down Xi's China, never the reverse.
> > >
> 4> So, one can look at the present situation on Earth and ask several logical questions about the 2 dictators of Putin's Russia and China's Xi.
> > >
> > > It is little wonder that both Russia and China dictators are combative towards the West. Because dictators never want to give up on power but stay in power all their life long. So they oppose the West because the West has grown up to democracy-- let the people have power, not one single idiot having power all his life time.
> > >
> 5 > Naturally, Putin will want to keep the Russian people suppressed and have Russia be a second rate government as a dictator. Same goes for China-- they never want to give up power so the people themselves choose their leader.
> > >
> > > But can we find differences in Putin and Xi themselves? Well in the West we call the Chinese inscrutable-- meaning -- little logical commonsense.. And is this a valid description?? Yes of course, considering that Russia had stolen the lands of Outer Manchuria, some 28 times larger of a land mass than is Taiwan island. Yet there is Xi, spending so much time on wanting to invade Taiwan, when it is Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok (Haishenwai) that he should be focusing attention upon. And while Putin is distracted with Ukraine, is the time for Xi to recapture Outer Manchuria, the Qing dynasty empire, Qing's Manchurian homeland.
> > >
> > > What does Xi do instead??? He focuses on Taiwan and befriends Russia. Why, at this rate, if Russia takes Inner Manchuria, we can expect Xi and the Chinese Communist Party to become even more loving of Russia for stealing more land of China.
> > >
> > > And there is Xi, whose China has become rich with trading with the West, yet every day, Xi foaming at the mouth in hatred of the West.
> > >
> > > So yes, Putin is 2X smarter as a dictator than is Xi, as if Putin has Xi in his side pocket.
> > >
> > > Is there some scientific explanation as to why Xi is 2X dumber than Putin?? Perhaps, in that China is densely populated and the air pollution over all of China is worse than most countries. That Xi probably has 1/2 of his brain filled with CO and CO2 isomers and lead, and mercury and nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide from just living in that air polluted hellhole of Beijing. Xi studied chemistry and should know this. Whereas Putin likely detox..s every evening with breathing in pure oxygen at his residence and takes oxygen breathing tanks to office and work. This easily can explain the light-headed reasoning that Xi and his foreign diplomats Wang Yi display, where Putin plays them like a chess game, --- checkmate in 7 moves.
> > >
> > > This explains why Xi hates the West for not stealing any Chinese lands and making China rich in trade, while loving Putin for stealing Outer Manchuria, and proposing having Russia push nuclear buttons, making both Russia and China a nuclear waste site after ICBMs wipe China off the map.
> > >
> > > Xi's brain is full of air pollution toxins from the nasty Chinese air.. They still build a new coal fired plant in China every day. The air in China is the worst air in the entire world.
> > >
> 6 > Why Putin is 2X smarter than Xi as dictators// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, not petty dictators.
> 
> 
> 
> > > > 2/1, AP tards:
> > > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/2, AP tards:
> > > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/3, AP tards:
> > > > > Every Russian missile fired into Ukraine met with a drone from Ukraine knocking out Moscow electric power lines
> > > > >
> > > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/4, AP tards:
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/9 (vacation?), AP tards:
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/9, AP tards (again):
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/10, AP tards:
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/11, AP tards:
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/12, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/12, AP tards again:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/13, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/14, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/15, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/16, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/17, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/18, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/19, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/20, AP tards:
> > > >
> > > > > Electricity out Novosibirsk &Volgograd█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/22, AP tards:
> > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/23, AP tards:
> > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/24, AP tards:
> > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/25, AP tards:
> > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/26, AP tards:
> > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> 
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 5:45:18 PM UTC-6, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 2:38:44 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > 2Moscow█۞█ blackout, knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > WM profile photo
> > > > WM
> > > > William
> > > Fritz Feldhase 703
> > > > The testimony of unit fractions 12:11PM
> > > >
> > > > AP writes: yes WM what is the news on the front???
> > > >
> > > > Ukraine cannot win a war if it has nada, no, zero offense, it needs to knock out Russian electric lines. And the Baltic states can help.
> > > > Knock out electricity in
> > > > Novosibirsk
> > > > Yekaterinburg
> > > > Novgorod
> > > > Samara
> > > > Omsk
> > > > Kazan
> > > > Rostov-na-Donu
> > > > Chelyabinsk
> > > > Ufa
> > > > Perm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _Every Russian missile fired into Ukraine met with a drone from Ukraine knocking out Moscow electric power lines
> > > >
> > > > _Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > NO ONE CAN WIN A FIGHT UNLESS THEY HAVE AN OFFENSE!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > NO ONE CAN WIN A FIGHT UNLESS THEY HAVE AN OFFENSE!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > NO ONE CAN WIN A FIGHT UNLESS THEY HAVE AN OFFENSE!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > _No one can win a fight or war without any offense, West, Biden give Ukraine drones that knock out electricity inside Russia
> > > >
> > > > _End the Ukraine war by March 2023 as the Russian people depose the dictator
> > > >
> > > > _rolling electric blackouts and give Iran to Iraq-- a blooming democracy, not a stupid dictator
> > > >
> > > > _And as the Baby Xi grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size of Outer Manchuria, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen Old China.
> > > >
> > > > _Xi has 1,000 divisions on Vladivostok border ready to swoop in and reclaim the stolen land of Outer Manchuria. See reconnaissance photo above of 1,000 divisions.
> > > >
> > > > NATO and the West has just two good options here, for Putin should have been removed in 2006 with Litvinenko poisoning. Now the insane Putin can poison the entire world with a nuclear war. Putin needed to go in 2006, for insanity just gets worse and worse.
> > > >
> > > > Either
> > > > (1) give Ukraine drones to knock out electric power in Moscow and beyond
> > > > Or
> > > > (2) give Ukraine NATO membership and tell Russia to clear out in a week or NATO forces go in and clear them out.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, every day Putin and Russia needs reminding that if he presses nuclear buttons or nuclear bomb on Ukraine that Russia will be a nuclear ash pile before the day is out.
> > > >
> > > > What should have been done in 2006, unfortunately that delay to 2022. Same can be said of Hitler-- he should have been removed in the early 1930s before his insanity got going.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Moscow reporters Kibo Volney-Connie Scutese reporting on Baby Xi in Haishenwai in 1950s
> > > > Where Volney and Connie had their picnic table in the oak and chestnut tree groves of the Amur river and seeing the Baby Xi grew up into strong manhood:
> > > > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:32:48 PM UTC-6, Volney& Connie Scutese wrote:
> > > > > _And as the Baby Xi grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer
> > > > > Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi
> > > > > learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size
> > > > > of Outer Manchuria, Emperor Qing's homeland, now occupied by homeless Russians drinking vodka, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders
> > > > > 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen
> > > >
> > > > > Old China On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 1:53:41 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > 2-Putin is 2X smarter than Xi as dictators// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, not petty dictators 2m views
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kibo Parry M-V quantifying Putin 2X smarter than Xi
> > > > > > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 12:17:06 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > >"Court Jester of Math"
> > > > > > > tarded:
> > > > > >
> > > > > 2> Kibo Parry, why not 2.5 times or 3.8 times, why 2 exactly???
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why Putin is 2X smarter than Xi as dictators// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, not petty dictators
> > > > > > 2m views
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > 2> If Putin pushes nuclear buttons, he drags down China along with Russia into a nuclear ash waste pile, and this means Xi is a inferior junior partner to Putin. Putin will drag down Xi's China, never the reverse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > 2> So, one can look at the present situation on Earth and ask several logical questions about the 2 dictators of Putin's Russia and China's Xi.
> > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is little wonder that both Russia and China dictators are combative towards the West. Because dictators never want to give up on power but stay in power all their life long. So they oppose the West because the West has grown up to democracy-- let the people have power, not one single idiot having power all his life time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Naturally, Putin will want to keep the Russian people suppressed and have Russia be a second rate government as a dictator. Same goes for China-- they never want to give up power so the people themselves choose their leader.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But can we find differences in Putin and Xi themselves? Well in the West we call the Chinese inscrutable-- meaning -- little logical commonsense. And is this a valid description?? Yes of course, considering that Russia had stolen the lands of Outer Manchuria, some 28 times larger of a land mass than is Taiwan island. Yet there is Xi, spending so much time on wanting to invade Taiwan, when it is Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok (Haishenwai) that he should be focusing attention upon. And while Putin is distracted with Ukraine, is the time for Xi to recapture Outer Manchuria, the Qing dynasty empire, Qing's Manchurian homeland.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What does Xi do instead??? He focuses on Taiwan and befriends Russia. Why, at this rate, if Russia takes Inner Manchuria, we can expect Xi and the Chinese Communist Party to become even more loving of Russia for stealing more land of China.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And there is Xi, whose China has become rich with trading with the West, yet every day, Xi foaming at the mouth in hatred of the West.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So yes, Putin is 2X smarter as a dictator than is Xi, as if Putin has Xi in his side pocket.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there some scientific explanation as to why Xi is 2X dumber than Putin?? Perhaps, in that China is densely populated and the air pollution over all of China is worse than most countries. That Xi probably has 1/2 of his brain filled with CO and CO2 isomers and lead, and mercury and nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide from just living in that air polluted hellhole of Beijing. Xi studied chemistry and should know this. Whereas Putin likely detox..s every evening with breathing in pure oxygen at his residence and takes oxygen breathing tanks to office and work. This easily can explain the light-headed reasoning that Xi and his foreign diplomats Wang Yi display, where Putin plays them like a chess game, --- checkmate in 7 moves.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This explains why Xi hates the West for not stealing any Chinese lands and making China rich in trade, while loving Putin for stealing Outer Manchuria, and proposing having Russia push nuclear buttons, making both Russia and China a nuclear waste site after ICBMs wipe China off the map.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Xi's brain is full of air pollution toxins from the nasty Chinese air. They still build a new coal fired plant in China every day. The air in China is the worst air in the entire world.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why Putin is 2X smarter than Xi as dictators// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, not petty dictators.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Subject: Insanity is a contagious disease as proven here in sci.math
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you saying that since you were one of the very first kooks in groups
> > > > > > > like sci.math and sci.physics 30 years ago, normal people caught
> > > > > > > insanity from you? And that's why there are so many other kooks in
> > > > > > > sci.math and sci.physics? Hmmm, interesting theory! You may be onto
> > > > > > > something!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One can easily define insanity as "doing the same foolish thing over and over again".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Incomplete quote as you left off the "expecting a different result"
> > > > > > > part, but AP's version really applies to StupidPlutonium. Look at what's
> > > > > > > going on in just one thread, "Re: Einstein's Sins", where AP posts the
> > > > > > > same foolish thing over and over again:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip everything before 2/1>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > KIBO PARRY M-V insanity kicking in----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > > >"certifiably insane"
> > > > > > > fails at math and science:
> > > > > > > > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > > > > > > "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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kibo replacing corpses for electric power poles to Moscow
> > > >
> > > > James Parry dunce in sci.math & sci,physics
> > > > On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 11:49:40 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > Pluto, so you finally tracked down James Parry in Moscow?
> > > > >
> > > > > But once again, that sentence no verb.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kibo WAS short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> > > > > Kibo WILL BE short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> > > > > Kibo PLANS ON short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> > > > > Kibo THINKS ABOUT short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > 2/1, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/2, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/3, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > Every Russian missile fired into Ukraine met with a drone from Ukraine knocking out Moscow electric power lines
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/4, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/9 (vacation?), AP tards:
> > > > > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/9, AP tards (again):
> > > > > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/10, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/11, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/12, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/12, AP tards again:
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/13, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/14, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/15, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/16, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/17, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/18, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/19, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/20, AP tards:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Electricity out Novosibirsk &Volgograd█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/22, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/23, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/24, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/25, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2/26, AP tards:
> > > > > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good job Kibo Parry M-V and what is your reward???
> > > > Kibo:
> > > > > > > wanting to fuck her corpse
> >
> > "Wow, that's a lot of deleted messages. Also, 'fuck her corpse'? I mean, guys..."

Click here to read the complete article

Andrew Wiles, is he being replaced by Fred Jeffries who at least can ask the question of where the second axes of symmetry of the fake ellipse conic section is, while Wiles runs and hides-- run Andrew, hide Andrew.

Fred Jeffries replacing Andrew Wiles Oxford Uni math failure?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, Run Wiles Hide Wiles

> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > >
> > > > http ----------
> > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
>

More of Fred Jeffries-- and his failure to follow through---

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > *
> > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > >
> > > earle
> > > *
> > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > >
> > > > https://.....
> > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> > But this does not change the scene by much for every math professor across the globe fails simple geometry with their memorized answer-- ellipse a conic section when it never was, for most math professors are lazy couch potatoes unwilling to experiment with paper cone and drop a coin inside and see that it is impossible to have a 2nd axis of symmetry as Fred Jeffries points out.

> He 'points out' no such thing. He does NOT point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a second axis of symmetry. He only points out that the particular video does not find that second axis of symmetry.
>
> And while he has read very few of the messages on that subject, he will point out that none of the detractors have shown how to find the second axis of symmetry, or even understood that it is a problem.

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 8:29:19 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
>"Drag Queen of Math"
> fails at math and science:

Click here to read the complete article

Fred Jeffries replacing Andrew Wiles Oxford Uni math failure?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, Run Wiles Hide Wiles

More of Fred Jeffries-- and his failure to follow through---

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 8:29:19 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
>"Drag Queen of Math"
> fails at math and science:

Is it true spammers Wolfgang Mueckenheim and spamlet William?
Math failures WM & William can never admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not the ellipse and sure as hell, can never do a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Nutjobs like WM & William waste every ones time in their crank insanity.

WM picture profile
WM

William
906
9:04
An inconsistency...

> Fred Jeffries replacing Andrew Wiles Oxford Uni math failure?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, Run Wiles Hide Wiles
>
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > > *
> > > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > earle
> > > > > *
> > > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > http ----------
> > > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> >
>
>
> More of Fred Jeffries-- and his failure to follow through---
>
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://.....
> > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> > > But this does not change the scene by much for every math professor across the globe fails simple geometry with their memorized answer-- ellipse a conic section when it never was, for most math professors are lazy couch potatoes unwilling to experiment with paper cone and drop a coin inside and see that it is impossible to have a 2nd axis of symmetry as Fred Jeffries points out.
>
> > He 'points out' no such thing. He does NOT point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a second axis of symmetry. He only points out that the particular video does not find that second axis of symmetry.
> >
> > And while he has read very few of the messages on that subject, he will point out that none of the detractors have shown how to find the second axis of symmetry, or even understood that it is a problem.
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 8:29:19 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> >"Drag Queen of Math"
> > fails at math and science:
> Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
> >
> > Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> > Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
> >
> > 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 sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> >
> >
> > Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> > John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
> >

WM picture profile
WM

William
906
9:04
An inconsistency...

> Fred Jeffries replacing Andrew Wiles Oxford Uni math failure?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, Run Wiles Hide Wiles
>
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > > *
> > > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > earle
> > > > > *
> > > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > http ----------
> > > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> >
>
>
> More of Fred Jeffries-- and his failure to follow through---
>
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://.....
> > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> > > But this does not change the scene by much for every math professor across the globe fails simple geometry with their memorized answer-- ellipse a conic section when it never was, for most math professors are lazy couch potatoes unwilling to experiment with paper cone and drop a coin inside and see that it is impossible to have a 2nd axis of symmetry as Fred Jeffries points out.
>
> > He 'points out' no such thing. He does NOT point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a second axis of symmetry. He only points out that the particular video does not find that second axis of symmetry.
> >
> > And while he has read very few of the messages on that subject, he will point out that none of the detractors have shown how to find the second axis of symmetry, or even understood that it is a problem.
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 8:29:19 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> >"Drag Queen of Math"
> > fails at math and science:

> Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
> >
> > Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> > Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
> >
> > 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 sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> >
> >
> > Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> > John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
> >

On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 10:58:33 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Andrew Wiles, is he being replaced by Fred Jeffries who at least can ask the question of where the second axes of symmetry of the fake ellipse conic section is, while Wiles runs and hides-- run Andrew, hide Andrew.
>
> Is it true spammers Wolfgang Mueckenheim and spamlet William?
> Math failures WM & William can never admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not the ellipse and sure as hell, can never do a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Nutjobs like WM & William waste every ones time in their crank insanity.
> WM picture profile
> WM
>
> William
> 906
> 9:04
> An inconsistency...
>
>
>
>
> > Fred Jeffries replacing Andrew Wiles Oxford Uni math failure?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, Run Wiles Hide Wiles
> >
> > > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > earle
> > > > > > *
> > > > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > http ----------
> > > > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> > >
> >
> >
> > More of Fred Jeffries-- and his failure to follow through---
> >
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > > *
> > > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > earle
> > > > > *
> > > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://.....
> > > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> > > > But this does not change the scene by much for every math professor across the globe fails simple geometry with their memorized answer-- ellipse a conic section when it never was, for most math professors are lazy couch potatoes unwilling to experiment with paper cone and drop a coin inside and see that it is impossible to have a 2nd axis of symmetry as Fred Jeffries points out.
> >
> > > He 'points out' no such thing. He does NOT point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a second axis of symmetry. He only points out that the particular video does not find that second axis of symmetry.
> > >
> > > And while he has read very few of the messages on that subject, he will point out that none of the detractors have shown how to find the second axis of symmetry, or even understood that it is a problem.
> > On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 8:29:19 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> > >"Drag Queen of Math"
> > > fails at math and science:
> 
> > Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
> > >
> > > Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> > > Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
> > >
> > > 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 sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> > >
> > >
> > > Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> > > John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
> > >

"In the style insubordinational"

Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Gottingen Uni why cannot you admit the truth about mathematics geometry-- the slant cut of right circular cone is a Oval, not the ellipse.

WM&Chris on math failures Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')]

Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales failures of math with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field

Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
Chris M. Thomasson
4 unread,
Re: An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
3:14 PM

Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
Chris M. Thomasson
unread,
Re: An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
2:34 PM

William's profile photo
William
, …
Fritz Feldhase
6 WM picture profile
WM

William
339
4:22PM
An inconsistency between...

No wonder they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why those fools of math cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse-- what are they blind in both eyes????

No wonder they cannot tell if Feynman's Electric Field 28.3 volume 1 Lectures on Physics is the same as the terms in AP's EM equation of E' or C'. Why, these three fools spent their entire life in algebra with Boole & Jevons logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. No wonder all three failure fools, Tao, Wiles, Hales rely on only one proof method reductio ad absurdum ( a fake method of proof in math) for it matches the con artistry fakery that Tao, Wiles, Hales produce.

And all AP asked for, is the three-- admit --- slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Far far too much to ask of 3 con-artist fakers of science.

Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] matches in math form AP's E' equation. AP's New Ohm's Law as V= CBE and when you take the differential equation of all possible permutations you get the laws of Electrodynamics. Notice that E' is essentially Feynman's equation for electric field..

C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction

B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract

E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity

V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity

New Physics throws out-- the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, Hermitian and matrix algebra, plus the Dirac Equation// Physics focus

by Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 1 July 2022. And this is AP's 192nd published book of science.

Preface: AP's 192nd book of Science// Translating Dirac's Hamiltonian and Lagrangian into New Physics of the AP-EM Equations of Electrodynamics. The reason these fancy math artifices are thrown out is because Old Physics had the Maxwell Equations full of errors, -- missing terms and outright false law of no magnetic monopole. So in order to get some reasonable solutions to experiments on Maxwell EM theory, these artificial math methods had to be hauled in to patch up the error filled Maxwell Equations.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of page 257 ---- in Dirac's book "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" 1957, showing how much of physics had become a game of algebra manipulation for the reason that Maxwell Equations were so very much error filled equations. And that playing games of matrices could overcome some of the error filled Maxwell Equations.

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

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 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

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

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 2:02:16 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Gottingen Uni why cannot you admit the truth about mathematics geometry-- the slant cut of right circular cone is a Oval, not the ellipse.
>
>
> WM&Chris on math failures Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')]
>
>
> Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales failures of math with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field
>
> Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
> Chris M. Thomasson
> 4
> unread,
> Re: An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
> 3:14 PM
> 
> Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
> Chris M. Thomasson
> unread,
> Re: An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
> 2:34 PM
> 
> William's profile photo
> William
> , …
> Fritz Feldhase
> 6
> WM picture profile
> WM
>
> William
> 339
> 4:22PM
> An inconsistency between...
>
> No wonder they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why those fools of math cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse-- what are they blind in both eyes????
>
> No wonder they cannot tell if Feynman's Electric Field 28.3 volume 1 Lectures on Physics is the same as the terms in AP's EM equation of E' or C'. Why, these three fools spent their entire life in algebra with Boole & Jevons logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. No wonder all three failure fools, Tao, Wiles, Hales rely on only one proof method reductio ad absurdum ( a fake method of proof in math) for it matches the con artistry fakery that Tao, Wiles, Hales produce.
>
> And all AP asked for, is the three-- admit --- slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Far far too much to ask of 3 con-artist fakers of science.
>
>
> Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] matches in math form AP's E' equation. AP's New Ohm's Law as V= CBE and when you take the differential equation of all possible permutations you get the laws of Electrodynamics. Notice that E' is essentially Feynman's equation for electric field.
>
>
> C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
>
> B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
>
> E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
>
> V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
>
> New Physics throws out-- the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, Hermitian and matrix algebra, plus the Dirac Equation// Physics focus
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
>
> Last revision was 1 July 2022. And this is AP's 192nd published book of science.
>
> Preface: AP's 192nd book of Science// Translating Dirac's Hamiltonian and Lagrangian into New Physics of the AP-EM Equations of Electrodynamics. The reason these fancy math artifices are thrown out is because Old Physics had the Maxwell Equations full of errors, -- missing terms and outright false law of no magnetic monopole. So in order to get some reasonable solutions to experiments on Maxwell EM theory, these artificial math methods had to be hauled in to patch up the error filled Maxwell Equations.
>
> Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of page 257 ---- in Dirac's book "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" 1957, showing how much of physics had become a game of algebra manipulation for the reason that Maxwell Equations were so very much error filled equations. And that playing games of matrices could overcome some of the error filled Maxwell Equations.
>
> 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
>
> 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 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
>
> 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

"Is this something like a forgery, honestly?"

Madeleine Jotz Lean, Metin Tolan,Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Gottingen Uni why cannot you admit the truth about mathematics geometry-- the slant cut of right circular cone is a Oval, not the ellipse.


William's profile photo
William
, …
Fritz Feldhase
6
WM picture profile
WM

William
339
4:22PM
An inconsistency between...

And all AP asked for, is the three-- admit --- slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Far far too much to ask of 3 con-artist fakers of science.

C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction

B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract

E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity

V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity

New Physics throws out-- the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, Hermitian and matrix algebra, plus the Dirac Equation// Physics focus

by Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 1 July 2022. And this is AP's 192nd published book of science.

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

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

Gottingen Univ math

Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shanghai with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person

Wolfgang is a mushroom cloud one of your dark numbers in your dark numbers bullshit spam?

William picture profile
William
143
WM
1:19
WM Logic

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 8:07:14 PM UTC-5, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>
> Nope.

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 3:10:35 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>Disposable

Yes, Chris, Sarmats are disposable, but are they biodegradable, and can your English environment protection agency classify Sarmats as biodegradable. We here in the USA have this illogical designation of "recyclable" and who cares about recycling a Sarmat?

Chris, which of these is Shangai ??? Is it 1/2
> i[0] = 1/1
> i[1] = 1/2
> i[2] = 1/3
> i[3] = 1/4
> i[4] = 1/5

Re: 4-Does WM make Germany & Gottingen Univ a failure in mathematics with his slant cut of Cone a ellipse when it is a OVAL, and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" Ben Bacarisse,Cynthia A. Volkert,Florentin Wörgötter,Annette Zippelius, Metin Tolan
by Chris Thomasson

So spamming William, a Sarmat never reaches its exact target but sends shock waves from a blast site.
> No.
>
> Not 'to its limit'.
>
> Only TOWARDS its limit.
>
> It never arrives 'at zero'.'

William, infinite spamming nutjob comparing unit fractions of Moscow compared to Beijing. William spamming nutjob is Moscow 0/1 and Beijing fraction is 1/0 ??

yan wyck in his daily spam says Beijing was nothing in 1999 and apparently a Russian Sarmat returned Beijing to "nothingness once again".

> Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'An, Suzhou, Harbin, Shenyang, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Dongguan, Foshan, Dalian, Jinan, Changchun, Hefei
>
> Shenzhen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shenzhen with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
>
>
>
> Is Pete Olcott in his Halting Problem, halting the vaporization of Wuhan by Putin's Russia???
>
>
> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> 
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 1:16:55 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "Imp of Science"
> >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> 
> Moscow█۞█ blackout, knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█







> & wrote:
> > _And as the Baby Xi grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer
> > Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi
> > learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size
> > of Outer Manchuria, Emperor Qing's homeland, now occupied by homeless Russians drinking vodka, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders
> > 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen
>
>
> > > Why Putin is 2X smarter than Xi as dictators// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, not petty dictators
> > > 2m views
> > >
> > >
> > 2> If Putin pushes nuclear buttons, he drags down China along with Russia into a nuclear ash waste pile, and this means Xi is a inferior junior partner to Putin. Putin will drag down Xi's China, never the reverse.
> > >
> > 2> So, one can look at the present situation on Earth and ask several logical questions about the 2 dictators of Putin's Russia and China's Xi.
> > >
> > > It is little wonder that both Russia and China dictators are combative towards the West. Because dictators never want to give up on power but stay in power all their life long. So they oppose the West because the West has grown up to democracy-- let the people have power, not one single idiot having power all his life time.
> > >
> > > Naturally, Putin will want to keep the Russian people suppressed and have Russia be a second rate government as a dictator. Same goes for China-- they never want to give up power so the people themselves choose their leader.
> > >
> > > But can we find differences in Putin and Xi themselves? Well in the West we call the Chinese inscrutable-- meaning -- little logical commonsense.. And is this a valid description?? Yes of course, considering that Russia had stolen the lands of Outer Manchuria, some 28 times larger of a land mass than is Taiwan island. Yet there is Xi, spending so much time on wanting to invade Taiwan, when it is Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok (Haishenwai) that he should be focusing attention upon. And while Putin is distracted with Ukraine, is the time for Xi to recapture Outer Manchuria, the Qing dynasty empire, Qing's Manchurian homeland.
> > >
> > > What does Xi do instead??? He focuses on Taiwan and befriends Russia. Why, at this rate, if Russia takes Inner Manchuria, we can expect Xi and the Chinese Communist Party to become even more loving of Russia for stealing more land of China.
> > >
> > > And there is Xi, whose China has become rich with trading with the West, yet every day, Xi foaming at the mouth in hatred of the West.
> > >
> > > So yes, Putin is 2X smarter as a dictator than is Xi, as if Putin has Xi in his side pocket.
> > >
> > > Is there some scientific explanation as to why Xi is 2X dumber than Putin?? Perhaps, in that China is densely populated and the air pollution over all of China is worse than most countries. That Xi probably has 1/2 of his brain filled with CO and CO2 isomers and lead, and mercury and nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide from just living in that air polluted hellhole of Beijing. Xi studied chemistry and should know this. Whereas Putin likely detox..s every evening with breathing in pure oxygen at his residence and takes oxygen breathing tanks to office and work. This easily can explain the light-headed reasoning that Xi and his foreign diplomats Wang Yi display, where Putin plays them like a chess game, --- checkmate in 7 moves.
> > >
> > > This explains why Xi hates the West for not stealing any Chinese lands and making China rich in trade, while loving Putin for stealing Outer Manchuria, and proposing having Russia push nuclear buttons, making both Russia and China a nuclear waste site after ICBMs wipe China off the map.
> > >
> > > Xi's brain is full of air pollution toxins from the nasty Chinese air.. They still build a new coal fired plant in China every day. The air in China is the worst air in the entire world.
> > >
> > > Why Putin is 2X smarter than Xi as dictators// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, not petty dictators.
>

> > > > 2/1, AP tards:
> > > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/2, AP tards:
> > > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/3, AP tards:
> > > > > Every Russian missile fired into Ukraine met with a drone from Ukraine knocking out Moscow electric power lines
> > > > >
> > > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/4, AP tards:
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/9 (vacation?), AP tards:
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/9, AP tards (again):
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/10, AP tards:
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/11, AP tards:
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/12, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/12, AP tards again:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/13, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/14, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/15, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/16, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/17, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/18, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/19, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/20, AP tards:
> > > >
> > > > > Electricity out Novosibirsk &Volgograd█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/22, AP tards:
> > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/23, AP tards:
> > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/24, AP tards:
> > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/25, AP tards:
> > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/26, AP tards:

Click here to read the complete article

Metin Tolan,Annalena Baerbock,Fritz Feldhase,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.

See my proofs below.

Re: -Muck the Puke WM & Gottingen and the whole of Germany cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval never ellipse, nor can anyone there do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- all they seem to do is "dark numbers bullshit"
2:59 PM

William's profile photo
William
, …
FromTheRafters
19
unread,
No "First" init fraction
On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:14:01 PM UTC-3, FromTheRafters wrote: > Fritz Feldhase expressed
2:52 PM


zelos...@gmail.com's profile photo
zelos...@gmail.com
, …

45
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
2:48 PM

William's profile photo
William
, …
Jim Burns
144
WM Logic
On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
2:35 PM


My 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, My 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Ben Bacarisse,Olaf Scholz,Metin Tolan,Annalena Baerbock,Fritz Feldhase,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
>
> See my proofs below.

William photo profile
William
Ben Bacarisse
54
7:36 PM
No "First" init...

> Re: -Muck the Puke WM & Gottingen and the whole of Germany cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval never ellipse, nor can anyone there do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- all they seem to do is "dark numbers bullshit"
> 2:59 PM
> 
> William's profile photo
> William
> , …
> FromTheRafters
> 19
> unread,
> No "First" init fraction
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:14:01 PM UTC-3, FromTheRafters wrote: > Fritz Feldhase expressed
> 2:52 PM
>
> 
> zelos...@gmail.com's profile photo
> zelos...@gmail.com
> , …
>
> 45
> Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
> Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
> 2:48 PM
> 
> William's profile photo
> William
> , …
> Jim Burns
> 144
> WM Logic
> On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
> 2:35 PM
> 
>
> My 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, My 11th published book
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Subject	Author
Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Gottingen University Germany needs a 1st	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Gottingen University Germany needs a 1st	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Gottingen University Germany needs a 1st	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Gottingen University Germany needs a 1st	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Michael Moroney
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Blaide Alesiooal@oasaella.oe Blaide Alesio
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Chris M. Thomasson
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Sergi o
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Sergi o
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Chris M. Thomasson
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Chris M. Thomasson
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Chris M. Thomasson
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education &	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Chris M. Thomasson
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Archimedes "gigatard" Plutonium flunked the math test of a	Michael Moroney
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H E
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Eram semper recta
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium