AP's 245th book of science-- Overhaul and Revitalization of Calculus, making it breathtakingly simple that High School students master Calculus and more advanced than todays 3rd year college students in calculus

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
May 28, 2023, 2:28:23 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe
AP's 245th book of science-- Overhaul and Revitalization of Calculus, making it breathtakingly simple that High School students master Calculus and more advanced than todays 3rd year college students in calculus

Alright I touched on all of this in my textbook series TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, where I in fact teach calculus in High School.

But the pathetic history of mathematics education is that almost every math professor is kookish about teaching math-- for they seem to not want to make math simple and easy, but just the opposite, make math incomprehensible, so that they "look smart" and everyone else looks dumb because they cannot understand that garbage hieroglyphics on the chalk board.

Part of the problem is how math professors are advanced-- by publishing in journals, leaving their classrooms a disaster of teaching.

What AP has proposed and written about is that Functions of math are not this dumpster full of all kinds of functions. No, the only valid function in mathematics are Polynomials. These are the easiest functions in all of math to do the calculus upon.

So some idiot math professor comes running in and wanting to put sine and cosine on the blackboard. No, no, no, no, no. You foolish idiot math professor in calculus class, convert you kook trig to a polynomial over an interval, then proceed to put that on the blackboard, and the students all happy because all those students can just simply take the Power Rules and have a derivative and integral faster than the math professor can eat a donut and slurp coffee in the math lounge.

This book is a calling demand to overhaul math education from 5 years old to 26 years old graduate school.

No longer should any student in any math class be tortured and driven to nightmares and insanity, all because math education never seems to ever want to make math easy and fun. There is one exception though -- Harold Jacobs and his Mathematics: A Human Endeavor.

AP

AP's 245th book of science-- Overhaul and Revitalization of Calculus, making it breathtakingly simple that High School students master Calculus and more advanced than todays 3rd year college students in calculus
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
6:41 PM (now)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am always more comfortable by doing at least 2 books simultaneously.

As one book benefits from the other book.

In my 244th book title:

I weave into the title that of psychology and sociology, for this book is not only about making Calculus ultra simple ultra easy ultra clear ultra understandable, but focuses attention on why math professors do just the opposite-- make math obfuscation, make math incomprehensible for the psychology reason of they are sado masochists who love cranking fake math. And it benefits them to crank fake math as it makes them appear smart while all the students trying to learn math, are unable to comprehend what the crank math professor is on about.

AP

Let me see if this title fits the bill. For I need psychology and sociology in why math professors become cranks and crackpots of mathematics education.

The sociology part is easy to answer in that math professors to advance spend more time in trying to research and publish papers-- time away from correcting Old Math and making their teaching in classrooms as best it can be.

The psychology part of why math professors are cranks and crackpots is partly due to their little logical brains, partly due to -- it is easier to teach establishment math than to correct errors -- partly due to the psychology of appearances for if a professor understands a patch of math (even though riddled in errors) but no-one else does, it looks to be smart when the exact opposite is the truth.

AP

Now here the psychology and sociology of why Calculus is so stifling dumb in modern times-- with their mindless Limit concept that ends up in 0 width rectangles for integral as summation of rectangles of area under graph curve is seen quite clearly-- just not enough logical brains.

And the sociology of that could also be found in the degradation of the environment with human pollution affecting air quality. Most colleges and universities are near big cities with air pollution at 10 on a scale of 1 to 10.. And no wonder a math professor who has few logical marbles in the first place put into a environment where his mind brain cannot get enough oxygen to think at all, let alone think straight and clear.

Sort of reminds me of the glue sniffing generation of the 1960s, and the gasoline full of lead that makes even taking mathematics 100 times more difficult. Instead of preparing for class lessons, in the 1960s, one needed to detoxification before studying or heading to class.

And the byproducts of this awful polluted environment with math professors of low logical intelligence in the first place, ends up with absurd professors like Appel & Haken with their reductio ad absurdum of 4 Color Mapping tripe and nonsens, and with Andrew Wiles claim of Fermat's Last Theorem when the fool could not even spot that Euler had no proof in exponent 3, for Andrew really needed to detox in that hellhole environment he found himself, or Thomas Hales reductio ad absurdum of Kepler Packing, probably living on the medium strip of a freeway to soak up more lead and nitrous oxide, or the Tao-Green mindrot reductio ad absurdum of string of primes, when what they really needed was a detox center and clean out their brains.

So the psychology and sociology of why mathematics in the 1900s and early 2000s is still in a cesspool sewer, is all because of --- no logical brains --- existed in mathematics until AP wrote TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS.

The prime number 1 essential work in all of mathematics from 1900 to 2023 was a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for it cleans out all the garbage and nonsense of Old Math. And psychologically and social factors made it impossible for a mind to comprehend what needed to be done.

Socially we see it even today, as colleges and universities graduate students in math who never studied one shred of formal logic, the science of thinking straight, thinking clearly. No student in math must take Real Analysis and Differential Equations but not logic.

Collleges and Universities expect math students to calculate, but not think straight, not think clearly.

AP

In my textbook TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Appears a diagram of the geometry of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, the world's first valid proof of FTC.

--- quoting from my textbook ---
Here is a picture of what you have

From this:
        B
        /|
      /  |
 m /----|
  /      |
|A      |
|____|

The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral. The area of the rectangle is the integral.

To this:

______
|         |
|         |
|         |
---------

So, we have two items in Calculus for this theorem, we have a derivative, the straight line segment A to B with m in the middle. And we have the rectangle area which we call the integral.
--- end quoting from my textbook ---

That picture constitutes a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, as the rectangle interior area is the integral, but a swiveling-up of a right-triangle at midpoint "m" the hypotenuse is the derivative from A to B. Swivel-up and you have derivative, swivel-down and you have integral.

But, for that to be a geometry proof of FTC, you cannot have Reals as the true numbers of mathematics, you need discrete numbers with holes and gaps from one number to the next.

You can only have 1st quadrant only for FTC geometry proof; you cannot have a clutter mix of negative with positive numbers.

You must have polynomials as the only valid functions in math, and not the insane present state of affairs in mathematics where anyone can dream up a new function. No, if you have a function not already a polynomial function, then you have to convert it to a polynomial over a specified interval before it is a valid function. This is needed in FTC, because the easiest derivative and easiest integral are Power Rules on Polynomial functions.

This is why I keep harping on Old Math to do a geometry proof of FTC, for it acts like a cleaning of the entire house of mathematics-- forcing the throwing out of so much dirt, blight and sheer muddle headed wrong.

Never before in math history has so much been dependent on a single proof of mathematics, where the entire Math Structure is called into question, and where mathematics is house cleaned.

And once math is cleaned of its house, math becomes the very easiest of all the sciences, and in one sense-- a closed science in that no new big structures are available in the future.

But without this house cleaning, math is the most pathetically hard and difficult and incomprehensible science, and it shows by many students hating math and shying away from entering science. Just because the math is a torture chamber and a nervous breakdown subject.

AP

Alright, until now, I have only provided one justification for why Only Polynomials are Valid Functions in all of Mathematics.

Mind you, it is a powerful justification, for it allows us to make Calculus as easy as add, subtract, multiply and divide. In fact the derivative and integral are the 5th and 6th operators of math with add being 1st, subtract 2nd, multiply 3rd and divide 4th. The justification was that Polynomials provide the easiest and most simple way of calculating the derivative and integral, in their Power Rules for Polynomials.

But while doing this book, I come up with another justification.

Notice that the formula for a straightline in mathematics is Y = mx + b. Notice the straightline formula is a polynomial of 1st degree polynomial. The derivative is a straightline.

And notice that if you take the integral of mx, you end up with x^2 a area of square.

So this is a second justification why polynomials have to be the Only Valid Functions of mathematics.

Summary: We have two justifications why Polynomials are the only valid functions of mathematics.

1) Simplicity and ease in Power Rules for calculus
2) The straightline in geometry is a polynomial Y = mx + b

Now is there a third justification?? A justification that the true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Number Systems, where numbers are discrete and have empty space from one number to the next? Is there some way of recognizing that only Polynomials are discrete in numbers???

And of course, well, if anyone in mathematics or physics or the sciences comes running up and wanting to do calculus on something not a polynomial, well, of course, you force that person to convert his/her so called function into a polynomial over a interval, before any work is done.

AP

Alright the proof is already in as to which of all the functions of mathematics, which makes Calculus the easiest to work with-- Polynomials with their Power Rules for derivative and integral. That proof is in, and all the rest of the functions of Old Math look ugly miserable and incomprehensible compared to Polynomials as the only valid functions of math. If an idiot math professor wants to dabble with any other type of function, tell the idiot-- convert to polynomial first, you idiot.

But, now, we want another proof that Polynomial functions are the only functions that are based on a discrete number system. In other words Reals as the numbers of mathematics is as fake as fake can be. I need to prove that only the Polynomials as valid functions are created from Discrete Numbers-- the Decimal Grid System of Numbers.

And this is kind of intuitive, for you plug in any number that ends in a string of 0s digits, turns up another Decimal that ends in 0s digits. The fault of Old Math is their silly dumb irrational numbers. No polynomial can give an irrational number when you all its numbers end in 0s digits. Provided we keep the axiom, that all Polynomials must never have a 0 all alone on the rightside of the equation. All polynomial equations must have a positive Grid number on the right side of the equation all alone at all times.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic

I need to eliminate such as 3x = 1, and thus x =0.333... in Decimal Grid Systems.

So, to do that, looks as though I need a Decimal Grid restriction axiom. That for 10 Grid, only 0.3 is allowed. If we borrow from 100 Grid then 0.33 is the answer, etc.

So it looks as though I need a new axiom to all of mathematics of Grid Restriction, then I can say-- I proved that Polynomials are the only functions that have Discrete Number Systems.

There is the possibility though, that I can prove discreteness in polynomials by looking at all the numbers between 0 and 1. So the number 0.999 is starting out x, now x^2 is smaller, and x^3 smaller yet, x^4 smaller yet all these products remaining between 0 and 1. If we go out to 10^604 infinity borderline, all our numbers between 0 and 1 are dense but discrete. That probably serves as a proof that Polynomials are the only functions to be dense, yet discrete.

AP

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 4:52:50 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I need to eliminate such as 3x = 1, and thus x =0.333... in Decimal Grid Systems.
>
> So, to do that, looks as though I need a Decimal Grid restriction axiom. That for 10 Grid, only 0.3 is allowed. If we borrow from 100 Grid then 0.33 is the answer, etc.
>
> So it looks as though I need a new axiom to all of mathematics of Grid Restriction, then I can say-- I proved that Polynomials are the only functions that have Discrete Number Systems.
>
> There is the possibility though, that I can prove discreteness in polynomials by looking at all the numbers between 0 and 1. So the number 0.999 is starting out x, now x^2 is smaller, and x^3 smaller yet, x^4 smaller yet all these products remaining between 0 and 1. If we go out to 10^604 infinity borderline, all our numbers between 0 and 1 are dense but discrete. That probably serves as a proof that Polynomials are the only functions to be dense, yet discrete.
>

I suspect I do not need a axiom of restriction.

It is apparent that all the numbers of 10 Grid are closed to multiplication and addition by 10^2. Same said for 100 Grid closed at 100^2.

So that polynomials in general form are a_n(x^n) + a_n-1(x^n-1) + ...+ a_1 (x) + a_0.

Every Grid is discrete and the union of grids is discrete.

Every number in any grid from 0 to 10^604 to 10^1208 is a number that ends its digit string in 0s.

I suspect I just do not need a axiom to prove.

And we look at all the other competitors of functions competing with polynomials. We look at trig functions, at exponential functions, at logarithmic functions, at hyperbolic functions. None can hold a discrete operation of numbers, only Polynomials.

And it is probably the general form of polynomials that causes them to be discrete-- the form-- a_n(x^n) + a_n-1(x^n-1) + ...+ a_1 (x) + a_0. Where each term is a discrete number where the final answer is a number ending in 0 digits.

In contrast, the logarithmic, exponential, trigonometric, hyperbolic are defined as continuous, whether you like it or not, assumed continuous. There definitions are not a form such as a_n(x^n) + a_n-1(x^n-1) + ...+ a_1 (x) + a_0, where every term is a number ending in 0 digits and thus the final answer a number ending in 0 digits.

Why is it so important for Numbers to be discrete? It is because you cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC in a continuum.. Your derivative has to be formed at a midpoint of a gap from one number to the next in the rectangle integral and to raise the right triangle at this midpoint to form the derivative, in the diagram of the proof of FTC.

AP

Alright, I have a third proof that Polynomial functions require the Numbers of mathematics to be discrete numbers, not a continuum of numbers.

It involves the midpoint "m" in the proof of FTC.

--- quoting from my textbook ---
Here is a picture of what you have

From this:
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
|A |
|____|

The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral. The area of the rectangle is the integral.

To this:

______
| |
| |
| |
---------

So, we have two items in Calculus for this theorem, we have a derivative, the straight line segment A to B with m in the middle. And we have the rectangle area which we call the integral.
--- end quoting from my textbook ---

This proof would eliminate most rational numbers along with every irrational number. No exceptions, even pi is unable to be divided by 2. Because in true math we find a infinity borderline that has 3 zero digits in a row, but in Old Math pi continues its string of digits.

The best example is the rational 0.333... of Old Math. It has no midpoint for it always has a odd digit continually being divided by 1 and never ends in a string of 0s.

So in this proof, the only function for which you are always guaranteed a midpoint for a line segment length is that of a Decimal Grid Number. Most Rationals can not provide a midpoint. All irrationals cannot provide a midpoint. The two transcendentals of pi and 2.71828.... cannot provide a midpoint.. Caution on pi, although we see it divided by regular polygons, that was Old Math with no infinity borderline. New Math says pi ends at 604th decimal place value and algebraically closed at the 1208th decimal place value, where in fact pi is evenly divisible by 120 at 604th and 720 at 1208th. This is a very neat turn-around to what math professors are used to. In their Old Math, they thought pi is evenly divisible, not so, but in New Math with the establish infinity borderline pi is truly evenly divisible.

So in mathematics, all lengths should have a Midpoint. And the only way to ensure all lengths have a midpoint, is discrete numbers.

Only Polynomial functions have straightlines. No other function has straight lines. Only Polynomials have midpoints to all these straightline segments.. Only Decimal Grid Number Systems provide ending digits must be 0s, hence, only valid functions of polynomials must be Decimal Grid Numbers-- discrete numbers.

And this makes rather commonsense. If you have a length that is continuous, meaning the digits never end in 0s, then you lose the ability to divide that length by 2 to fetch a midpoint.

QED

AP

Pi = Top line
e = Middle line
phi = Bottom line

14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510
71828 18284 59045 23536 02874 71352 66249 77572 47093 69995
61803 39887 49894 84820 45868 34365 63811 77203 09179 80576
58209 74944 59230 78164 06286 20899 86280 34825 34211 70679
95749 66967 62772 40766 30353 54759 45713 82178 52516 64274
28621 35448 62270 52604 62818 90244 97072 07204 18939 11374
82148 08651 32823 06647 09384 46095 50582 23172 53594 08128
27466 39193 20030 59921 81741 35966 29043 57290 03342 95260
84754 08807 53868 91752 12663 38622 23536 93179 31800 60766
48111 74502 84102 70193 85211 05559 64462 29489 54930 38196
59563 07381 32328 62794 34907 63233 82988 07531 95251 01901
72635 44333 89086 59593 95829 05638 32266 13199 28290 26788
44288 10975 66593 34461 28475 64823 37867 83165 27120 19091
15738 34187 93070 21540 89149 93488 41675 09244 76146 06680
06752 08766 89250 17116 96207 03222 10432 16269 54862 62963
45648 56692 34603 48610 45432 66482 13393 60726 02491 41273
82264 80016 84774 11853 74234 54424 37107 53907 77449 92069
13614 43814 97587 01220 34080 58879 54454 74924 61856 95364
72458 70066 06315 58817 48815 20920 96282 92540 91715 36436
55170 27618 38606 26133 13845 83000 75204 49338 26560 29760
86444 92410 44320 77134 49470 49565 84678 85098 74339 44221
78925 90360 01133 05305 48820 46652 13841 46951 94151 16094
67371 13200 70932 87091 27443 74704 72306 96977 20931 01416
25448 77066 47809 15884 60749 98871 24007 65217 05751 79788
33057 27036 57595 91953 09218 61173 81932 61179 31051 18548
92836 81902 55151 08657 46377 21112 52389 78442 50569 53696
34166 25624 94075 89069 70400 02812 10427 62177 11177 78053
07446 23799 62749 56735 18857 52724 89122 79381 83011 94912
77078 54499 69967 94686 44549 05987 93163 68892 30098 79312
15317 14101 17046 66599 14669 79873 17613 56006 70874 80710
98336 73362 44065 66430 86021 39494 63952 24737 19070 21798
77361 78215 42499 92295 76351 48220 82698 95193 66803 31825
13179 52368 94275 21948 43530 56783 00228 78569 97829 77834
60943 70277 05392 17176 29317 67523 84674 81846 76694 05132
28869 39849 64651 05820 93923 98294 88793 32036 25094 43117
78458 78228 91109 76250 03026 96156 17002 50464 33824 37764

XXXXXX
00056 81271 45263 56082 77857 71342 75778 96091 73637 17872
30123 81970 68416 14039 70198 37679 32068 32823 76464 80429
86102 83831 26833 03724 29267 52631 16533 92473 16711 12115 xxx
14684 40901 22495 34301 46549 58537 10507 92279 68925 89235
53118 02328 78250 98194 55815 30175 67173 61332 06981 12509
88186 38513 31620 38400 52221 65791 28667 52946 54906 81131 xxx
42019 95611 21290 21960 86403 44181 59813 62977 47713 09960
96181 88159 30416 90351 59888 85193 45807 27386 67385 89422 xxx
71599 34323 59734 94985 09040 94762 13222 98101 72610 70596
xxxxxxxx
51870 72113 49999 99837 29780 49951 05973 17328 16096 31859
87922 84998 92086 80582 57492 79610 48419 84443 63463 24496 xxx
11645 62990 98162 90555 20852 47903 52406 02017 27997 47175 xxx
50244 59455 34690 83026 42522 30825 33446 85035 26193 11881
84875 60233 62482 70419 78623 20900 21609 90235 30436 99418
34277 75927 78625 61943 20827 50513 12181 56285 51222 48093 xxx xxx
71010 00313 78387 52886 58753 32083 81420 61717 76691 47303
49146 31409 34317 38143 64054 62531 52096 18369 08887 07016
94712 34145 17022 37358 05772 78616 00868 83829 52304 59264
59825 34904 28755 46873 11595 62863 88235 37875 93751 95778
76839 64243 78140 59271 45635 49061 30310 72085 10383 75051
78780 17889 92199 02707 76903 89532 19681 98615 14378 03149
18577 80532 17122 68066 13001 92787 66111 95909 21642 01989
01157 47704 17189 86106 87396 96552 12671 54688 95703 50354
97411 06926 08867 42962 26757 56052 31727 77520 35361 39362
38095 25720 10654 85863 27886 59361 53381 82796 82303 01952
02123 40784 98193 34321 06817 01210 05627 88023 51930 33224
10767 38937 64556 06060 59216 58946 67595 51900 40055 59089
03530 18529 68995 77362 25994 13891 24972 17752 83479 13151
74501 58539 04730 41995 77770 93503 66041 69973 29725 08868
50229 53094 23124 82355 21221 24154 44006 47034 05657 34797
55748 57242 45415 06959 50829 53311 68617 27855 88907 50983
76966 40355 57071 62268 44716 25607 98826 51787 13419 51246
66397 23949 49946 58457 88730 39623 09037 50339 93856 21024
81754 63746 49393 19255 06040 09277 01671 13900 98488 24012
65201 03059 21236 67719 43252 78675 39855 89448 96970 96409
23690 25138 68041 45779 95698 12244 57471 78034 17312 64532

XXXXXXX 1208th digit
85836 16035 63707 66010 47101 81942 95559 61989 46767 83744
75459 18569 56380 23637 01621 12047 74272 28364 89613 42251
20416 39723 21340 44449 48730 23154 17676 89375 21030 68737

Alright, lately I have been proving that Polynomials are the Only-Valid-Functions in all of mathematics. If you want to do math with functions, if not already a polynomial, you have to convert your trashy function into a polynomial over a specific interval, then you can do math.

Now when I was on this topic before in years long long ago, I did not have the time to detail why polynomials were the only valid functions in mathematics, except for the justification that -- the easiest, most simple of all the functions to do Calculus was the Power Rules of Polynomial functions. Being the simple and easy striving person I am, naturally I would say-- "Listen up- math professors-- if you made polynomials the only valid function in all of mathematics, you reduce Calculus to its ultra ultra super simple form. For now, all you do is apply the two Power Rules for derivative and integral. There, you just made Stewart's 1,000 page Calculus textbook and reduced it down to 300 pages. You removed 700 pages of b.s. and made math calculus be the most simple it could ever be.

You relieved every student of math, the torture chamber of nightmares and nervous breakdowns, for they no longer need the b.s. of trig, of exponential, of logarithmic, of hyperbolic b.s. functions.

That was my proof that Polynomials were the only valid functions.

But here I am many years later writing this book, and feel I need more proofs that Polynomials are the ___Only Valid Functions___. Not just the argument that polynomials reduces all of Calculus to ultra ultra easy and simple math.

So here I am, from 2013 to 2023, a decade later, doing more proofs that Polynomials must be the Only Valid Functions.

Know what Numbers really are, not some sack of crap cobbled together in a junk pile called Reals

History of discovery: can be pinned to the year 2013 where Grid Numbers replaces the Reals. I needed discrete numbers not a continuum and by 2013 I started True Calculus, where I need empty space gaps between discrete numbers, in order for calculus to exist.

Whenever you have a science, and you see "cobbling together of items"-- means the science is primitive, riddled with error and half-truths, and such was the Reals of Old Math.

TRUE CORRECT Numbers needed to do Math or any science like physics in particular

Alright, once we have Logic, we start mathematics, and the best place to start is how we recognize and use numbers. Math has two houses, one is Geometry and one is Numbers (Algebra). We can start with either one of them, geometry or numbers. Here we start with numbers.

DECIMAL NUMBER SYSTEM is superior to all other number systems and the only system to be used in SCIENCE, especially physics.

Let us focus on Numbers, how to represent them, for in how to represent numbers can either destroy our understanding or allow us to understand fully and clearly. If we have the wrong representation of numbers, we cannot hope to fully understand them.

In the history of mathematics, one of the key discoveries was the Decimal Number System. It was discovered in Ancient times by Hindu Arabic, but was slowly accepted and needed many changes along the way to our modern day use. But, even as of recently, 2017, most math professors, perhaps all except AP, thought that Number Systems never change the value of numbers, regardless of what system you use. And in the age of computers, the computer electronics favors binary system, with its electronic gate open or closed.

The Binary system is 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, etc and those represent, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 in decimals.

Trouble is, though, one number system is superior to all other number systems, the decimal system superior. And the representation of numbers, does in fact, affect the values of numbers, except decimal. Decimal Number system is the only system that does not affect the actual true value of the number.. How can that be? It is the fractions that are distorted in other number system, not decimal.

The decimal number system is the only non-corrupting system, and all other systems have failures of number values, in the fractions.

The reason Decimal is superior, is because of the 231Pu Atom Totality demands a number system that has Clean-Pure Numbers as border endpoints. A clean-pure number is this progression
1
10
100
1000
10000
etc

and
..1
..01
..001
..0001
etc

Now, here is what I wrote for 13 year olds as a lesson and a proof of why Decimal Grid Numbers are so very very special and unique in all of Mathematics, so that True Math is based on Decimal Grid Numbers.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic

Alright, I lost track of the count of how many proofs I have (informal proofs) that Polynomials are discrete and the true numbers of mathematics (not the b.s. Reals) have to be discrete. Those discrete numbers are of course the Decimal Grid Numbers.

So in the last decade, I stopped at saying Polynomials makes Calculus ultra easy with its Power Rules to conquer calculus. And this trick I used to unify the 4 forces of physics. Ask yourself, first, which of the 4 forces is the "most perfect force" the easy answer is EM force for it has the most perfect particle-- Light Wave, hence, all the other 3 forces must be a form of EM force.

In the same manner starting 2013, while writing True Calculus books, I realized that if all functions were just versions of Polynomial functions, I could reduce all of Calculus to its finest, and most simple form where all I do is apply the two Power Rules. Those unfamiliar with Power Rules, say I had the function x^2 then its derivative is 2x and its integral is (1/3)x^3 doing it in my head. Say I started with the function x^5, then its derivative is 5x^4 and its integral is (1/6)x^6.

The only reason Stewart had to write a 1,000 page nightmarish and nervous breakdown calculus textbook, is because Stewart never realized mathematics had Only One Valid function-- polynomials, instead, Stewart like his Reals, is a cobbled together trashpile of functions.

So I used the argument from 2013 to 2023 that Polynomials were the Only True Valid functions, the arguement and proof being that it Simplifies all of mathematics, and that is a very very strong proof and argument.

But now, in 2023, I want more proofs. I want a proof that Polynomials Require the true numbers of mathematics be DISCRETE numbers, and not the trashbag of Reals that are cobbling together all sorts of trashy dirty numbers-- Rationals with the hideous 0.333... or the 0.999.... fruitcake numbers or the irrationals to the transcendental b.s. to the imaginary and complex b.s. Mathematics was never meant to be a trash garbage collection science, no, math was meant to be ultra sleek fast and easy science.

So now, in 2023, I am having 4 new proofs that Polynomials are the Only Valid Functions in mathematics and they require the True Numbers of mathematics be discrete numbers.

We can see this already in the fact that only the Polynomial Functions have a straightline to them. We can never find a straightline Y= mx + b, never find a Y= mx + b in a exponential, nor a logarithmic, and hell-no in any trigonometry, or hyperbolic. Only in Polynomials can you have a straightline Y = mx + b. That alone is one proof that Polynomials are the only valid functions, and if some idiot math professor comes running in with something not a polynomial-- we ask the fool to convert it to a polynomial over a interval.

But, now, I am having to prove a more difficult proof-- Prove that Polynomials as functions are discrete and require Decimal Grid Number Systems such as 10 Grid then 100 Grid then 1000 Grid etc.

Prove that Polynomials are in fact Decimal Grid Numbers and only Grid Numbers, for Grid Numbers are discrete with holes in between one number and its next number.

One proof I offered already is the fact that in Calculus to have a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires that you always be able to have a Midpoint between any distance or length of a straightline. Sounds reasonable, you should always have a midpoint between any length of a straightline. But in Old Math, suppose the length is of a 0.333... or of a 0.9999..... and thus, there exists no midpoint for those lengths. And what Old Math did as a con-artist job they symbolized it -- (0.333...)/2, or (0.99999....)/2 or pi/2 or 2.71828.../2. You see, the con-artists of Old Math swept this under the rug by just symbols, pretending they could divide such numbers by 2 when in reality ,they could not divide by 2.

That is why New Math requires a Infinity Borderline for pi which is 1*10^604 where pi digits has three 0 digits in a row at that decimal place value, and surely then pi is divisible by 2 as well as 120. And in New Math, not Old Math, we safely say we have a midpoint for pi.

The need for a Midpoint to any length in geometry requires numbers to be Discrete. Are the Polynomials Discrete?? That was one of my proofs-- that the polynomials were indeed discrete and thus represented the Decimal Grid Number System. The proof was the general form of a polynomial a_n(x^n) + a_n-1(x^n-1) + ...+ a_1 (x) + a_0. Those terms of the general polynomial form are discrete segments of Decimal Grid Number System length.

AP

Here is another proof that Polynomials are the same as Discrete Numbers system-- the Decimal Grid Number System.

Let us start with any Rectangle possible, using only the Counting Numbers-- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...... 1*10^604. Notice we go only to the infinity borderline.

Now we have any rectangle with any two sides, we do not have squares.

Now suppose I arbitrary have the rectangle 56 by 35. And what I am going to do is get phi and 2.71828.... and even pi = 3.14159... into this proof.

So I started with rectangle 56 by 35. I could start with rectangle 89777433387 by 9722209, but I would have to spend many hours with it.

In rectangle 56 by 35, I make continual squares inside the rectangle and even outside the rectangle.

Let me do the inside the rectangle first.

So I have the square 35 by 35 inside the rectangle 56 by 35, and that yields a newer smaller rectangle of 35 by 21. That in turn yields a newer square of 21 by 21 which in turn yields a newer rectangle of 21 by 14. Yielding a smaller square of 14 by 14 and a finally a square of 7 by 7. This is of course the Fibonacci sequence that involve the number phi 1.61.... and involves simultaneously the Logarithmic Spiral with its famous number of e= 2.71828.....

But it also involves pi = 3.14159... for circles are equiangular as well as the log-spiral is equiangular produced by these rectangles of whirling squares.

We can say that a rectangle is to a square, what a logarithmic-spiral is to a circle.

In mathematics geometry, the rectangle is a log-spiral and the square is a circle.

Of course, the integral in Calculus is the summation of rectangles.

So, going the other direction of my starting rectangle of 56 by 35, for I add on a square of 56 by 56 to the rectangle 56 by 35 and obtain a new rectangle that is 91 by 56. Now add on a square 91 by 91 to the 91 by 56 rectangle and I have a new rectangle that is 147 by 91, etc etc.

And so, how is this a proof that Polynomial Functions are Decimal Grid Number Systems? Every rectangle and square, yields every curve of circle and log-spiral. The Square and Rectangle are Decimal Grid Systems-- and call them conveniently, call them a graph coordinate system.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic

Excellent, not only have I stumbled upon a proof that Polynomial functions require a Discrete math number system, but how squares and rectangles produce curves of circle, ellipse, log-spiral, oval, parabola, hyperbola, all from spinning squares inside of rectangles.

And this is important for physics for it is a close up view of the Light Wave, where the square inside of whirling rectangles is the particle of light, while the curve formed is the Light Wave itself.

I have now done 5 proofs that Polynomials are the Only Valid Functions of mathematics, and if not a polynomial you have to convert your degraded function into a polynomial before you enter the academic halls of Calculus.

All these proofs are informal, but in my Teaching True Mathematics textbooks I will formalize these proof in a revised edition.

This book is more about the psyche and psychology and sociology of why lamebrain math professors refuse to correct mathematics to what the truth of math is and how math is the Easiest, most simple of all the sciences and prevents students from having nervous breakdowns and nightmares, for Old Math had become a torture chamber lead by obtuse and obfuscating professors of math. Why, none of them can even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not their ellipse and really should never have been in mathematics in the first place as they continue to torture chamber students with their error filled calculus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
>
> Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>

Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//

Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler, Julia F. Knight logic journal, Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy, David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz, Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman, Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods

Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
> Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
>
> Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
>
> In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
> • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
> #12-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

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

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 6:53:16 PM 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 that, over the years here, 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

Dan Christensen wrote:

>> [snip] Dan Christensen ...[snip]
> Time for another spanking, Archie Poo! When will you learn? Once
> again...

When you move a clown into a palace it doesn't make him a king,it turns
the palace into a circus

Demilitarization of Ukraine is one thing.
But how do you remove the Nazi minds & hearts of the people there?
That's a bigger challenge.

"Counteroffensive not going well – Zelensky" - YOU THINK! This is code for
the US taxpayer to be screwed. AGAIN!

So why no peace? More destruction and death means more IMF\US\EU Bankster
Loans and kickbacks? Need to sell more stuff to Blackrock first? Launder
more money?

Why is this clown junkie still alive?

Ukraine - Redefining 'Progress' since 1991.

the khazar gay actor on cocaine zelenske, is doing the war from palestine,
where his khazar family is domiciled, from the beginning of the war.

Nazi khazar Zelenskey must take responsibility for all the disasters that
had occurred to Ukraine during his tenure as president and resign
immediately.

Jewlensky the clown prince of the US 51rst state. Send more money he will
squeal. We captured 8 fictitious hamlets and only lost 15.000 men so far.
Takes time takes time. But no worries, Jewlensky and xiBiden will confirm
that the Ukes will be in Moscow and home by Christmas. Trust the science.

Not going well. I wounder how Western Proxy nation tax payers will react?
After all Proxy nations tax payers such as the Banana Republic of Canada
invested more than $5 billion in multifaceted assistance, including
financial, humanitarian, development military and peace and stabilization
aid to *_the_United_states_of_Ukraine_*. In this day and age of Economic
Chaos I'd say, the tax funded investment *_turned_into_a_lemon_*. Stupid
Canadian Monkeys!

Nazilensky is living his Ngo Dinh Diem's moment. He's panicking!

Nato egging on zelensky but he dosent know no aid is free and he is
leasing ukraine resources to refund aid of 100 billions for 100 years

He arrived to that conclusion after sending hundreds of thousand of men to
their death. Sending drones over Russia with the help of the English did
nothing either.

Ukraine seems stuck in the 1930th lacking understanding of the modern
world and Balance of Power where not even Nato dares to wage war on
Russia.

For zelensky death of 2,00,000 people in war is comedy

Selfish putz floating on the river of the de-nile.

This is not a movie zylinspig this is real life facing the GREAT Russian
army 🇷🇺 its not a stroll in the park this is WAR and man fight wars not
Hollywood actors you stupid idiot. The west destroyed you country while
you fill your pockets Disgusting little male you should be sent to a
Siberian Prison for life were you will be someone little B i t c h

Dan Christensen wrote:

>> [snip] Dan Christensen ... [snip]
> Time for another spanking, Archie Poo! When will you learn? Once again...

*_Counteroffensive_not_going_well_* – Zelensky
Progress has been “slower than desired,” the Ukrainian gay actor on cocaine,
told the BBC
https://%72t.com/r%75%73%73ia/578402-zelensky-counteroffensive-progress-slow/

These same experts were convinced Russia was losing a year ago！

Captain Kosher is as comical as ever.

Hahahaha hehehe Counter offensive with Deutsche Spilezeug ( German Child
Toys ) Leopard2 ? its already burned by Russian Heros, soon will be
American Kites F-16s dust and Ash on the sky

Volney wrote:

>> the khazar gay actor on cocaine zelenske, is doing the war from
>> palestine,
>> where his khazar family is domiciled, from the beginning of the war.
>
> Smart getting his family out of harm's way, but I think they're
> elsewhere.

wow, in his big cocaine mouth of heroism he was supposed to fight a war,
or that's only for fools. Like the "vaccines", it's not for the khazars,

you disgusting little putz. See you in Siberia, for the food you eat.
Because you are eating every day.