Spam sickfucks Pete Olcott & Richard Damon too stupid to correct Boole&Jevons logic and thus spamming trash of halting. Too stupid to even do geometry correctly with their slant cut of cone a ellipse when in reality that is a oval; too stupid to do a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and probably do not know what that is.

olcott picture profile
olcott
Richard Damon
14
6:13PM
Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders

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



#10-2, 27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not                    
T = T  =  T                      
T = ~F = T                      
F = ~T = T
F = F   = T   

If--> then                  
T --> T  = T
T --> F  = F
F --> T  = U  (unknown or uncertain)           
F --> F  = U  (unknown or uncertain)

And
T  &  T = T                       
T  &  F = T                      
F  &  T = T                      
F  &  F = F                      

Or
T  or  T  = F
T  or  F  = T
F  or  T  = T
F  or  F  = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, 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 unknown, undefined end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

|    | ~p
|    |---
|    | .
|    | .
|    | q
|    | .
|    | .
|    | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.

Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic

#10-3, 143rd published book

DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.

Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.

Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.

Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled

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)

Look my post from: groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.usa/c/N1nqMbv7n38

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 3:24:57 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Spam sickfucks Pete Olcott & Richard Damon too stupid to correct Boole&Jevons logic and thus spamming trash of halting. Too stupid to even do geometry correctly with their slant cut of cone a ellipse when in reality that is a oval; too stupid to do a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and probably do not know what that is.
>
> olcott picture profile
> olcott
> Richard Damon
> 14
> 6:13PM
> Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders
>
>
> 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
> 

>
>
> #10-2, 27th published book
>
> Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
>
> Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
>
> Preface:
> These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
>
> Equal+Not
> T = T = T
> T = ~F = T
> F = ~T = T
> F = F = T
>
> If--> then
> T --> T = T
> T --> F = F
> F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
> F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
>
> And
> T & T = T
> T & F = T
> F & T = T
> F & F = F
>
>
> Or
> T or T = F
> T or F = T
> F or T = T
> F or F = F
>
> Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, 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 unknown, undefined end conclusion.
>
> Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
>
> | | ~p
> | |---
> | | .
> | | .
> | | q
> | | .
> | | .
> | | ~q
> | p
>
> Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
> • Publication date : March 23, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1178 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 86 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
>
>
>
> #10-3, 143rd published book
>
> DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> By Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.
>
> Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.
>
> Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.
>
> Product details
> • File Size : 620 KB
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print Length : 38 pages
> • ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
> • Publication Date : October 27, 2020
> • Language: : English
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Lending : Enabled
>
>
>
> 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)

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 10:19:08 PM UTC-5, Y V A wrote:
> Look my post from: groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.usa/c/N1nqMbv7n38

Fine post, can you teach Pete Olcott and Richard Damon how not to be spamming sickfucks??? Or is that an intractable disease with them.

Spam sickfucks Pete Olcott & Richard Damon too stupid to correct Boole&Jevons logic and thus spamming trash of halting. Too stupid to even do geometry correctly with their slant cut of cone a ellipse when in reality that is a oval; too stupid to do..
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
8:24 PM (3 hours ago)



to
Spam sickfucks Pete Olcott & Richard Damon too stupid to correct Boole&Jevons logic and thus spamming trash of halting. Too stupid to even do geometry correctly with their slant cut of cone a ellipse when in reality that is a oval; too stupid to do a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and probably do not know what that is.

olcott picture profile
olcott
Richard Damon
14
6:13PM
Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders

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



#10-2, 27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T

If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)

And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F

Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, 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 unknown, undefined end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.

Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic

#10-3, 143rd published book

DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.

Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.

Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.

Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled

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.

Sickfucks Pete Olcott & Mr.Flibble too stupid to correct Boole&Jevons logic and thus spamming trash of halting. Too stupid to even do geometry correctly with their slant cut of cone a ellipse when in reality that is a oval; too stupid to do..

olcott
, …
Mr Flibble
27
Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs
4:14 PM


> Spam sickfucks Pete Olcott & Richard Damon too stupid to correct Boole&Jevons logic and thus spamming trash of halting. Too stupid to even do geometry correctly with their slant cut of cone a ellipse when in reality that is a oval; too stupid to do a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and probably do not know what that is.
>
> olcott picture profile
> olcott
> Richard Damon
> 14
> 6:13PM
> Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders
>
>
> 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
> 

>
>
> #10-2, 27th published book
>
> Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
>
> Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
>
> Preface:
> These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
>
> Equal+Not
> T = T = T
> T = ~F = T
> F = ~T = T
> F = F = T
>
> If--> then
> T --> T = T
> T --> F = F
> F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
> F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
>
> And
> T & T = T
> T & F = T
> F & T = T
> F & F = F
>
>
> Or
> T or T = F
> T or F = T
> F or T = T
> F or F = F
>
> Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, 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 unknown, undefined end conclusion.
>
> Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
>
> | | ~p
> | |---
> | | .
> | | .
> | | q
> | | .
> | | .
> | | ~q
> | p
>
> Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
> • Publication date : March 23, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1178 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 86 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
>
>
>
> #10-3, 143rd published book
>
> DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> By Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.
>
> Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.
>
> Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.
>
> Product details
> • File Size : 620 KB
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print Length : 38 pages
> • ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
> • Publication Date : October 27, 2020
> • Language: : English
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Lending : Enabled
>
>
>
> 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)

1 out of 5 stars rating, Alan Baker, Cambridge Uni teaching math at Cambridge Univ-- is that what you are saying Pete Olcott and Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney in your hate spam and stalk posts going on 30 years?

Yes well I can understand that poor rating of Alan Baker, too stupid to admit slant cut of cone is Oval , not ellipse for a slant cut of cylinder is surely a ellipse, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus out of the fuddy duddy Alan Baker. See proofs below by AP

Cambridge Uni math a waste of brain cells-Alan Baker??
> Mason Yearian Stanford Uni physics textbook--Kibo Parry M-V is Jason correct by saying it is a waste of brain cells?? You indicate in your dissertion below this is a fact, can you elaborate?? How about Stanford Uni Robert Wagoner, does he have two marbles of a physics brain to rub together or is he also Bathynomus? Can even Earle Jones understand Mason Yearian and can Earle finally learn Ohm's law??
> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:18:28 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
>
> Kibo Parry--did JDB critic copy his review from Jason Herrmann, Reno Nevada review. Both of those scathing reviews have the same vitriol, did they copy one another's review, Kibo???
>
> On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 11:03:10 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > tarded:
>
> Jason Herrmann the antiscience runt and spamtard cannot tell the difference from science fiction and real science. He is looking for science fiction and unfortunately stumbled into the real science section and picked a AP book of real true science. This only shows that AP books are attractive to not only scientists but runts of science
>
> Top review from the United States
>
> Jason Herrmann -- Reno Nevada
> 1.0 out of 5 stars Waste of money and brain cells
> Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 17, 2019
> A complete and utter load of BS.
> 2 people found this helpful
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 6:00:58 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > of Math and of Physics Archimedes "spamtard" Plutonium
> > <plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:
> > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> >
> > Oh no! It looks like Plutonium is mad that McTard is out-spamming him,
> > so Pluto increases his own spam output. In just this topic Pluto spams
> > at least 10 times.
> >

> Stanford Uni physics a waste of brain cells-Robert Wagoner??
> 
> JDB on Univ South Florida too scared to DNA test Smilodon as walrus tusks for fear of proving AP correct.
>
>
> JDB never studied logic, hopefully Dr.Carney at least tried to study logic.
> >
> > Top review from the United States
> >
> > J.D.B
> > 1.0 out of 5 stars Mindless, pointless, and useless
> > Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 6, 2022
> > This 'book' is a rambling series of email exchanges by someone who never even studied the material they are laying claim to. The alternate hypotheses are never supported nor is there any work to show the works opposing the author are incorrect. If hundreds of specimens of various cats are found with fangs literally growing out of the skull, it's not because someone misplaced a piece of a walrus onto a cat. This work is a pretentious joke, and I made the mistake borrowing it to read.
> > One person found this helpful
> >
> > AP writes: So anyone can make up a sentence "If hundreds of specimens...." That is not the point you moron JDB, for there is not one case example of a skull with fangs attached. If the Moon was made of Limburger cheese.... JDB is a moron of science.
> > > JDB and Dr.Ryan Carney University of South Florida, Tampa-- Scleromonchlus was a water animal, just like Pterosaurs, but Univ South Florida, Tampa has no logical brains to see this// And does USF have brains to DNA test the sabers of Saber tooth tiger as walrus.
> > > 1>
> > > Not a single Saber toothed tiger skull intact with sabres ever found in fossils, yet Tampa's University of South Florida with JDB hate spews and Dr. Ryan Carney work on Archaeopteryx is probably all wrong. Not a single saber of the tiber DNA tested-- yes, Potsdam Germany tested DNA of lower mandible but not the saber.
> > >
> > > Does Univ South Florida Tampa, have the brains to DNA test Smilodon sabers to make sure they are __not__ walrus tusks, or is everything from USF illogical loudmouth criticism coming out of JDB, a science moron.
> > > 2>
> > > Does University of South Florida, Tampa require Logic abilities before it gives degrees in science to students, or better yet, has professors like Dr. Ryan Carney build a Archaeopteryx to fly when no aerodynamic engineer can make the heavy animal fly. Why is Dr. Carney too dumb to make a commonsense guess-- the Bird used its false-wings as a paddle to oar and row in the shallow seas. No wonder you have hate spew fools like JDB, spewing hate on books of science that correct fools like Dr. Carney.
> > >
> > > Now we have reports of the Scleromonchlus taylori fossil that was a ancestor of the Pterosaur. The Scleromonchlus fossil has a huge head for body size--- MEANING, that the animal swam in water and lived in water-- and putting a logical brain to work-- Dr. Carney, can you see that your flying Pterosaurs has got to be a most awful joke in all of science history. The animal used its appendages to paddle oar on water.
> > > 3>
> > > For example JDB understanding of how logic even works-- for when you make a If--> then argument, science is not about hypotheticals but about genuine facts. Yes, AP is working on facts--- facts that never a full intact Sabre tooth tiger skull. Every one in is wired together in museums.
> > >
> > > University of South Florida's Ryan Carney's work on Archaeopteryx-- could it fly, fails to convince physicists, especially AP since he wrote a book that the Archaeopteryx in fact did not fly but used its bone structure to paddle in water. For Earth from Precambrian to about 90 to 66 mya had 1/2 of Earth constantly facing the Sun and the other 1/2 of Earth in constant darkness and in this landscape the seas were shallow. So life in the seas was met with reptile-birds that could use their so called wings to paddle around in water, much like some water birds. But the Archaeopteryx never flew in the air.
> > > 4>
> > > My 65th published book
> > >
> > > PTEROSAURS; Paleontology mistake for it never flew, it sailed and oar-rowed with their Sail (not a wing for flying); paleontology series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > >
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Last revision was 22Dec2021. And this is AP's 65th published book, mostly on science.
> > >
> > > Preface: I was reading a Scientific American article of October, 2019 on Pterosaurs, giant animals, some the size of giraffes flying. This upset my logical mind and knew there was a big mistake in this. Thus, I wrote this book to put some logical commonsense into the field of paleontology.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture is my picture of that magazine article.
> > >
> > > --------------------------
> > > Table of Contents
> > > --------------------------
> > >
> > > 1) Why the increasing number of Paleontology Mistakes, due to the rise of the Internet as worldwide forum to argue with a cloistered science.
> > >
> > > 2) The AP Conjecture on Pterosaurs.
> > >
> > > 3) Sails, or rowing-oars, not wings.
> > >
> > > 4) A logical and physiological difference between a Sail and a Wing.
> > >
> > > 5) Mechanism to evolve Sails, not wings.
> > >
> > > 6) Pteroid bone and flexor tendon for rowing oar.
> > >
> > > 7) What the Pterosaurs ate is revealing.
> > >
> > > 8) The huge widespread prevalence of Shallow Seas in geological time.
> > >
> > > 6>Product details
> > > 6>ASIN : B07YDL2412
> > > 6>Publication date : September 25, 2019
> > > 6>Language : English
> > > 
> > > 101>◦ #61 in Paleontology (Books)
>

Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith,1 out of 5 stars rating, Cambridge Uni teaching math at Cambridge Univ-- is that what you are saying Pete Olcott and Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney in your hate spam and stalk posts going on 30 years?

Olcott picture profile
Olcott
Richard Damon
43
11:04
Simulating (partial) Halt....

> Yes well I can understand that poor rating of Alan Baker,Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith too stupid to admit slant cut of cone is Oval , not ellipse for a slant cut of cylinder is surely a ellipse, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus out of the fuddy duddy Alan Baker. See proofs below by AP
>
> Cambridge Uni math a waste of brain cells-Alan Baker??
> > Mason Yearian Stanford Uni physics textbook--Kibo Parry M-V is Jason correct by saying it is a waste of brain cells?? You indicate in your dissertion below this is a fact, can you elaborate?? How about Stanford Uni Robert Wagoner, does he have two marbles of a physics brain to rub together or is he also Bathynomus? Can even Earle Jones understand Mason Yearian and can Earle finally learn Ohm's law??
> > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:18:28 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> > >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> >
> > Kibo Parry--did JDB critic copy his review from Jason Herrmann, Reno Nevada review. Both of those scathing reviews have the same vitriol, did they copy one another's review, Kibo???
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 11:03:10 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > tarded:
> >
> > Jason Herrmann the antiscience runt and spamtard cannot tell the difference from science fiction and real science. He is looking for science fiction and unfortunately stumbled into the real science section and picked a AP book of real true science. This only shows that AP books are attractive to not only scientists but runts of science
> >
> > Top review from the United States
> >
> > Jason Herrmann -- Reno Nevada
> > 1.0 out of 5 stars Waste of money and brain cells
> > Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 17, 2019
> > A complete and utter load of BS.
> > 2 people found this helpful
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 6:00:58 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > of Math and of Physics Archimedes "spamtard" Plutonium
> > > <plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:
> > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > >
> > > Oh no! It looks like Plutonium is mad that McTard is out-spamming him,
> > > so Pluto increases his own spam output. In just this topic Pluto spams
> > > at least 10 times.
> > >
>
>
> > Stanford Uni physics a waste of brain cells-Robert Wagoner??
> > 
> > JDB on Univ South Florida too scared to DNA test Smilodon as walrus tusks for fear of proving AP correct.
> >
> >
> > JDB never studied logic, hopefully Dr.Carney at least tried to study logic.
> > >
> > > Top review from the United States
> > >
> > > J.D.B
> > > 1.0 out of 5 stars Mindless, pointless, and useless
> > > Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 6, 2022
> > > This 'book' is a rambling series of email exchanges by someone who never even studied the material they are laying claim to. The alternate hypotheses are never supported nor is there any work to show the works opposing the author are incorrect. If hundreds of specimens of various cats are found with fangs literally growing out of the skull, it's not because someone misplaced a piece of a walrus onto a cat. This work is a pretentious joke, and I made the mistake borrowing it to read.
> > > One person found this helpful
> > >
> > > AP writes: So anyone can make up a sentence "If hundreds of specimens...." That is not the point you moron JDB, for there is not one case example of a skull with fangs attached. If the Moon was made of Limburger cheese..... JDB is a moron of science.
> > > > JDB and Dr.Ryan Carney University of South Florida, Tampa-- Scleromonchlus was a water animal, just like Pterosaurs, but Univ South Florida, Tampa has no logical brains to see this// And does USF have brains to DNA test the sabers of Saber tooth tiger as walrus.
> > > > 1>
> > > > Not a single Saber toothed tiger skull intact with sabres ever found in fossils, yet Tampa's University of South Florida with JDB hate spews and Dr. Ryan Carney work on Archaeopteryx is probably all wrong. Not a single saber of the tiber DNA tested-- yes, Potsdam Germany tested DNA of lower mandible but not the saber.
> > > >
> > > > Does Univ South Florida Tampa, have the brains to DNA test Smilodon sabers to make sure they are __not__ walrus tusks, or is everything from USF illogical loudmouth criticism coming out of JDB, a science moron.
> > > > 2>
> > > > Does University of South Florida, Tampa require Logic abilities before it gives degrees in science to students, or better yet, has professors like Dr. Ryan Carney build a Archaeopteryx to fly when no aerodynamic engineer can make the heavy animal fly. Why is Dr. Carney too dumb to make a commonsense guess-- the Bird used its false-wings as a paddle to oar and row in the shallow seas. No wonder you have hate spew fools like JDB, spewing hate on books of science that correct fools like Dr. Carney.
> > > >
> > > > Now we have reports of the Scleromonchlus taylori fossil that was a ancestor of the Pterosaur. The Scleromonchlus fossil has a huge head for body size--- MEANING, that the animal swam in water and lived in water-- and putting a logical brain to work-- Dr. Carney, can you see that your flying Pterosaurs has got to be a most awful joke in all of science history. The animal used its appendages to paddle oar on water.
> > > > 3>
> > > > For example JDB understanding of how logic even works-- for when you make a If--> then argument, science is not about hypotheticals but about genuine facts. Yes, AP is working on facts--- facts that never a full intact Sabre tooth tiger skull. Every one in is wired together in museums.
> > > >
> > > > University of South Florida's Ryan Carney's work on Archaeopteryx-- could it fly, fails to convince physicists, especially AP since he wrote a book that the Archaeopteryx in fact did not fly but used its bone structure to paddle in water. For Earth from Precambrian to about 90 to 66 mya had 1/2 of Earth constantly facing the Sun and the other 1/2 of Earth in constant darkness and in this landscape the seas were shallow. So life in the seas was met with reptile-birds that could use their so called wings to paddle around in water, much like some water birds. But the Archaeopteryx never flew in the air.
> > > > 4>
> > > > My 65th published book
> > > >
> > > > PTEROSAURS; Paleontology mistake for it never flew, it sailed and oar-rowed with their Sail (not a wing for flying); paleontology series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > > >
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Last revision was 22Dec2021. And this is AP's 65th published book, mostly on science.
> > > >
> > > > Preface: I was reading a Scientific American article of October, 2019 on Pterosaurs, giant animals, some the size of giraffes flying. This upset my logical mind and knew there was a big mistake in this. Thus, I wrote this book to put some logical commonsense into the field of paleontology.
> > > >
> > > > Cover Picture is my picture of that magazine article.
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------
> > > > Table of Contents
> > > > --------------------------
> > > >
> > > > 1) Why the increasing number of Paleontology Mistakes, due to the rise of the Internet as worldwide forum to argue with a cloistered science.
> > > >
> > > > 2) The AP Conjecture on Pterosaurs.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Sails, or rowing-oars, not wings.
> > > >
> > > > 4) A logical and physiological difference between a Sail and a Wing..
> > > >
> > > > 5) Mechanism to evolve Sails, not wings.
> > > >
> > > > 6) Pteroid bone and flexor tendon for rowing oar.
> > > >
> > > > 7) What the Pterosaurs ate is revealing.
> > > >
> > > > 8) The huge widespread prevalence of Shallow Seas in geological time.
> > > >
> > > > 6>Product details
> > > > 6>ASIN : B07YDL2412
> > > > 6>Publication date : September 25, 2019
> > > > 6>Language : English
> > > > 
> > > > 101>◦ #61 in Paleontology (Books)
> >
>
>
> SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao
> CERN: Eliezer Rabinovici, Fabiola Gianotti
> Fermi Lab: Lia Merminga
>
>
>
> David Sainsbury Cambridge chancellor
> Cambridge Physics Dept
>
> Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
>
> Cambridge Math Dept
> Alan Baker, Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith, John Coates, Timothy Gowers, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain
> 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)

Darwin Smith,1 out of 5 stars rating, Cambridge Uni teaching math at Cambridge Univ-- is that what you are saying Pete Olcott and Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney in your hate spam and stalk posts going on 30 years?

Olcott picture profile
Olcott
Mr Flibble
52
2:20PM
Simulating (partial) Halt....

> Olcott picture profile
> Olcott
> Richard Damon
> 43
> 11:04
> Simulating (partial) Halt....
>
>
> > Yes well I can understand that poor rating of Alan Baker,Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith too stupid to admit slant cut of cone is Oval , not ellipse for a slant cut of cylinder is surely a ellipse, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus out of the fuddy duddy Alan Baker. See proofs below by AP
> >
> > Cambridge Uni math a waste of brain cells-Alan Baker??
> > > Mason Yearian Stanford Uni physics textbook--Kibo Parry M-V is Jason correct by saying it is a waste of brain cells?? You indicate in your dissertion below this is a fact, can you elaborate?? How about Stanford Uni Robert Wagoner, does he have two marbles of a physics brain to rub together or is he also Bathynomus? Can even Earle Jones understand Mason Yearian and can Earle finally learn Ohm's law??
> > > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:18:28 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> > > >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> > >
> > > Kibo Parry--did JDB critic copy his review from Jason Herrmann, Reno Nevada review. Both of those scathing reviews have the same vitriol, did they copy one another's review, Kibo???
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 11:03:10 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > tarded:
> > >
> > > Jason Herrmann the antiscience runt and spamtard cannot tell the difference from science fiction and real science. He is looking for science fiction and unfortunately stumbled into the real science section and picked a AP book of real true science. This only shows that AP books are attractive to not only scientists but runts of science
> > >
> > > Top review from the United States
> > >
> > > Jason Herrmann -- Reno Nevada
> > > 1.0 out of 5 stars Waste of money and brain cells
> > > Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 17, 2019
> > > A complete and utter load of BS.
> > > 2 people found this helpful
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 6:00:58 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > of Math and of Physics Archimedes "spamtard" Plutonium
> > > > <plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:
> > > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > >
> > > > Oh no! It looks like Plutonium is mad that McTard is out-spamming him,
> > > > so Pluto increases his own spam output. In just this topic Pluto spams
> > > > at least 10 times.
> > > >
> >
> >
> > > Stanford Uni physics a waste of brain cells-Robert Wagoner??
> > > 
> > > JDB on Univ South Florida too scared to DNA test Smilodon as walrus tusks for fear of proving AP correct.
> > >
> > >
> > > JDB never studied logic, hopefully Dr.Carney at least tried to study logic.
> > > >
> > > > Top review from the United States
> > > >
> > > > J.D.B
> > > > 1.0 out of 5 stars Mindless, pointless, and useless
> > > > Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 6, 2022
> > > > This 'book' is a rambling series of email exchanges by someone who never even studied the material they are laying claim to. The alternate hypotheses are never supported nor is there any work to show the works opposing the author are incorrect. If hundreds of specimens of various cats are found with fangs literally growing out of the skull, it's not because someone misplaced a piece of a walrus onto a cat. This work is a pretentious joke, and I made the mistake borrowing it to read.
> > > > One person found this helpful
> > > >
> > > > AP writes: So anyone can make up a sentence "If hundreds of specimens..." That is not the point you moron JDB, for there is not one case example of a skull with fangs attached. If the Moon was made of Limburger cheese..... JDB is a moron of science.
> > > > > JDB and Dr.Ryan Carney University of South Florida, Tampa-- Scleromonchlus was a water animal, just like Pterosaurs, but Univ South Florida, Tampa has no logical brains to see this// And does USF have brains to DNA test the sabers of Saber tooth tiger as walrus.
> > > > > 1>
> > > > > Not a single Saber toothed tiger skull intact with sabres ever found in fossils, yet Tampa's University of South Florida with JDB hate spews and Dr. Ryan Carney work on Archaeopteryx is probably all wrong. Not a single saber of the tiber DNA tested-- yes, Potsdam Germany tested DNA of lower mandible but not the saber.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does Univ South Florida Tampa, have the brains to DNA test Smilodon sabers to make sure they are __not__ walrus tusks, or is everything from USF illogical loudmouth criticism coming out of JDB, a science moron.
> > > > > 2>
> > > > > Does University of South Florida, Tampa require Logic abilities before it gives degrees in science to students, or better yet, has professors like Dr. Ryan Carney build a Archaeopteryx to fly when no aerodynamic engineer can make the heavy animal fly. Why is Dr. Carney too dumb to make a commonsense guess-- the Bird used its false-wings as a paddle to oar and row in the shallow seas. No wonder you have hate spew fools like JDB, spewing hate on books of science that correct fools like Dr. Carney.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now we have reports of the Scleromonchlus taylori fossil that was a ancestor of the Pterosaur. The Scleromonchlus fossil has a huge head for body size--- MEANING, that the animal swam in water and lived in water-- and putting a logical brain to work-- Dr. Carney, can you see that your flying Pterosaurs has got to be a most awful joke in all of science history. The animal used its appendages to paddle oar on water.
> > > > > 3>
> > > > > For example JDB understanding of how logic even works-- for when you make a If--> then argument, science is not about hypotheticals but about genuine facts. Yes, AP is working on facts--- facts that never a full intact Sabre tooth tiger skull. Every one in is wired together in museums.
> > > > >
> > > > > University of South Florida's Ryan Carney's work on Archaeopteryx-- could it fly, fails to convince physicists, especially AP since he wrote a book that the Archaeopteryx in fact did not fly but used its bone structure to paddle in water. For Earth from Precambrian to about 90 to 66 mya had 1/2 of Earth constantly facing the Sun and the other 1/2 of Earth in constant darkness and in this landscape the seas were shallow. So life in the seas was met with reptile-birds that could use their so called wings to paddle around in water, much like some water birds. But the Archaeopteryx never flew in the air.
> > > > > 4>
> > > > > My 65th published book
> > > > >
> > > > > PTEROSAURS; Paleontology mistake for it never flew, it sailed and oar-rowed with their Sail (not a wing for flying); paleontology series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > > > >
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 22Dec2021. And this is AP's 65th published book, mostly on science.
> > > > >
> > > > > Preface: I was reading a Scientific American article of October, 2019 on Pterosaurs, giant animals, some the size of giraffes flying. This upset my logical mind and knew there was a big mistake in this. Thus, I wrote this book to put some logical commonsense into the field of paleontology.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover Picture is my picture of that magazine article.
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------
> > > > > Table of Contents
> > > > > --------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Why the increasing number of Paleontology Mistakes, due to the rise of the Internet as worldwide forum to argue with a cloistered science..
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) The AP Conjecture on Pterosaurs.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Sails, or rowing-oars, not wings.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) A logical and physiological difference between a Sail and a Wing.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5) Mechanism to evolve Sails, not wings.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6) Pteroid bone and flexor tendon for rowing oar.
> > > > >
> > > > > 7) What the Pterosaurs ate is revealing.
> > > > >
> > > > > 8) The huge widespread prevalence of Shallow Seas in geological time.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6>Product details
> > > > > 6>ASIN : B07YDL2412
> > > > > 6>Publication date : September 25, 2019
> > > > > 6>Language : English
> > > > > 
> > > > > 101>◦ #61 in Paleontology (Books)
> > >
> >
> >
> > SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao
> > CERN: Eliezer Rabinovici, Fabiola Gianotti
> > Fermi Lab: Lia Merminga
> >
> >
> >
> > David Sainsbury Cambridge chancellor
> > Cambridge Physics Dept
> >
> > Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
> >
> > Cambridge Math Dept
> > Alan Baker, Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith, John Coates, Timothy Gowers, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain
> > 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)

Darwin Smith,1 out of 5 stars rating, Cambridge Uni teaching math at Cambridge Univ-- is that what you are saying Pete Olcott and Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney in your hate spam and stalk posts going on 30 years?

Olcott picture profile
Olcott
Mr Flibble
52
2:20PM
Simulating (partial) Halt....


> Olcott picture profile
> Olcott
> Richard Damon
> 43
> 11:04
> Simulating (partial) Halt....
>
>
> > Yes well I can understand that poor rating of Alan Baker,Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith too stupid to admit slant cut of cone is Oval , not ellipse for a slant cut of cylinder is surely a ellipse, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus out of the fuddy duddy Alan Baker. See proofs below by AP
> >
> > Cambridge Uni math a waste of brain cells-Alan Baker??
> > > Mason Yearian Stanford Uni physics textbook--Kibo Parry M-V is Jason correct by saying it is a waste of brain cells?? You indicate in your dissertion below this is a fact, can you elaborate?? How about Stanford Uni Robert Wagoner, does he have two marbles of a physics brain to rub together or is he also Bathynomus? Can even Earle Jones understand Mason Yearian and can Earle finally learn Ohm's law??
> > > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:18:28 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> > > >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> > >
> > > Kibo Parry--did JDB critic copy his review from Jason Herrmann, Reno Nevada review. Both of those scathing reviews have the same vitriol, did they copy one another's review, Kibo???
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 11:03:10 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > tarded:
> > >
> > > Jason Herrmann the antiscience runt and spamtard cannot tell the difference from science fiction and real science. He is looking for science fiction and unfortunately stumbled into the real science section and picked a AP book of real true science. This only shows that AP books are attractive to not only scientists but runts of science
> > >
> > > Top review from the United States
> > >
> > > Jason Herrmann -- Reno Nevada
> > > 1.0 out of 5 stars Waste of money and brain cells
> > > Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 17, 2019
> > > A complete and utter load of BS.
> > > 2 people found this helpful
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 6:00:58 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > of Math and of Physics Archimedes "spamtard" Plutonium
> > > > <plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:
> > > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > >
> > > > Oh no! It looks like Plutonium is mad that McTard is out-spamming him,
> > > > so Pluto increases his own spam output. In just this topic Pluto spams
> > > > at least 10 times.
> > > >
> >
> >
> > > Stanford Uni physics a waste of brain cells-Robert Wagoner??
> > > 
> > > JDB on Univ South Florida too scared to DNA test Smilodon as walrus tusks for fear of proving AP correct.
> > >
> > >
> > > JDB never studied logic, hopefully Dr.Carney at least tried to study logic.
> > > >
> > > > Top review from the United States
> > > >
> > > > J.D.B
> > > > 1.0 out of 5 stars Mindless, pointless, and useless
> > > > Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 6, 2022
> > > > This 'book' is a rambling series of email exchanges by someone who never even studied the material they are laying claim to. The alternate hypotheses are never supported nor is there any work to show the works opposing the author are incorrect. If hundreds of specimens of various cats are found with fangs literally growing out of the skull, it's not because someone misplaced a piece of a walrus onto a cat. This work is a pretentious joke, and I made the mistake borrowing it to read.
> > > > One person found this helpful
> > > >
> > > > AP writes: So anyone can make up a sentence "If hundreds of specimens..." That is not the point you moron JDB, for there is not one case example of a skull with fangs attached. If the Moon was made of Limburger cheese..... JDB is a moron of science.
> > > > > JDB and Dr.Ryan Carney University of South Florida, Tampa-- Scleromonchlus was a water animal, just like Pterosaurs, but Univ South Florida, Tampa has no logical brains to see this// And does USF have brains to DNA test the sabers of Saber tooth tiger as walrus.
> > > > > 1>
> > > > > Not a single Saber toothed tiger skull intact with sabres ever found in fossils, yet Tampa's University of South Florida with JDB hate spews and Dr. Ryan Carney work on Archaeopteryx is probably all wrong. Not a single saber of the tiber DNA tested-- yes, Potsdam Germany tested DNA of lower mandible but not the saber.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does Univ South Florida Tampa, have the brains to DNA test Smilodon sabers to make sure they are __not__ walrus tusks, or is everything from USF illogical loudmouth criticism coming out of JDB, a science moron.
> > > > > 2>
> > > > > Does University of South Florida, Tampa require Logic abilities before it gives degrees in science to students, or better yet, has professors like Dr. Ryan Carney build a Archaeopteryx to fly when no aerodynamic engineer can make the heavy animal fly. Why is Dr. Carney too dumb to make a commonsense guess-- the Bird used its false-wings as a paddle to oar and row in the shallow seas. No wonder you have hate spew fools like JDB, spewing hate on books of science that correct fools like Dr. Carney.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now we have reports of the Scleromonchlus taylori fossil that was a ancestor of the Pterosaur. The Scleromonchlus fossil has a huge head for body size--- MEANING, that the animal swam in water and lived in water-- and putting a logical brain to work-- Dr. Carney, can you see that your flying Pterosaurs has got to be a most awful joke in all of science history. The animal used its appendages to paddle oar on water.
> > > > > 3>
> > > > > For example JDB understanding of how logic even works-- for when you make a If--> then argument, science is not about hypotheticals but about genuine facts. Yes, AP is working on facts--- facts that never a full intact Sabre tooth tiger skull. Every one in is wired together in museums.
> > > > >
> > > > > University of South Florida's Ryan Carney's work on Archaeopteryx-- could it fly, fails to convince physicists, especially AP since he wrote a book that the Archaeopteryx in fact did not fly but used its bone structure to paddle in water. For Earth from Precambrian to about 90 to 66 mya had 1/2 of Earth constantly facing the Sun and the other 1/2 of Earth in constant darkness and in this landscape the seas were shallow. So life in the seas was met with reptile-birds that could use their so called wings to paddle around in water, much like some water birds. But the Archaeopteryx never flew in the air.
> > > > > 4>
> > > > > My 65th published book
> > > > >
> > > > > PTEROSAURS; Paleontology mistake for it never flew, it sailed and oar-rowed with their Sail (not a wing for flying); paleontology series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > > > >
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 22Dec2021. And this is AP's 65th published book, mostly on science.
> > > > >
> > > > > Preface: I was reading a Scientific American article of October, 2019 on Pterosaurs, giant animals, some the size of giraffes flying. This upset my logical mind and knew there was a big mistake in this. Thus, I wrote this book to put some logical commonsense into the field of paleontology.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover Picture is my picture of that magazine article.
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------
> > > > > Table of Contents
> > > > > --------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Why the increasing number of Paleontology Mistakes, due to the rise of the Internet as worldwide forum to argue with a cloistered science..
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) The AP Conjecture on Pterosaurs.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Sails, or rowing-oars, not wings.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) A logical and physiological difference between a Sail and a Wing.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5) Mechanism to evolve Sails, not wings.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6) Pteroid bone and flexor tendon for rowing oar.
> > > > >
> > > > > 7) What the Pterosaurs ate is revealing.
> > > > >
> > > > > 8) The huge widespread prevalence of Shallow Seas in geological time.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6>Product details
> > > > > 6>ASIN : B07YDL2412
> > > > > 6>Publication date : September 25, 2019
> > > > > 6>Language : English
> > > > > 
> > > > > 101>◦ #61 in Paleontology (Books)
> > >
> >
> >
> > SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao
> > CERN: Eliezer Rabinovici, Fabiola Gianotti
> > Fermi Lab: Lia Merminga
> >
> >
> >
> > David Sainsbury Cambridge chancellor
> > Cambridge Physics Dept
> >
> > Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
> >
> > Cambridge Math Dept
> > Alan Baker, Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith, John Coates, Timothy Gowers, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain
> > 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)

Spam sickfucks Olcott&Damon, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and how could they, for they still think slant cut of cone is ellipse when truly it is a oval.

There is no halting problem once you correct Boole & Jevons logic, but these two spamming oafs will never understand that.

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 



#10-2, 27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not                    
T = T  =  T                      
T = ~F = T                      
F = ~T = T
F = F   = T   

If--> then                  
T --> T  = T
T --> F  = F
F --> T  = U  (unknown or uncertain)           
F --> F  = U  (unknown or uncertain)

And
T  &  T = T                       
T  &  F = T                      
F  &  T = T                      
F  &  F = F                      

Or
T  or  T  = F
T  or  F  = T
F  or  T  = T
F  or  F  = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, 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 unknown, undefined end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

|    | ~p
|    |---
|    | .
|    | .
|    | q
|    | .
|    | .
|    | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.

Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic

#10-3, 143rd published book

DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.

Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.

Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.

Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled

Dr.Hales,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.


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)

Dr.Hales,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.


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)

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

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 12:39:29 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

[snip] Dan Christensen ...

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which could explain...

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

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

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

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

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

And if that wasn't weird enough...

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

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

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

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

Updated version (repetition removed):

"Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as you are
How great thou are, are, are, are.
Oh Atom Plutonium, the God that you are
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
Oh Atom Plutonium, Great God of Atoms
Atom of Atoms
Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as thou art"
--March 24, 2023

Dan

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