Kibo on Andrew Wiles math failure & mentally ill says Kibo while pounding his male rectum (so he says).

On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the

Your a failure Andrew Wiles of math, a utter low class failure. Why you are so stupid in math logic, you never even saw that Euler had no proof in exponent 3 for Euler forgot that a proof of exp 3 required him to prove all three A,B,C are not even numbers, no, Euler just was too dumb in logic same as you Andrew to realize he had to prove A,B,C were not all three even. And to put a finer point on it-- why you Andrew Wiles is a math failure, is that you are so stupid in geometry as to still think a slant cut of cone is a ellipse when it is a oval. That is probably why you could never do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for how could you when you cannot tell apart a ellipse from a oval.

Your FLT fakery of 1990s is just con-art-- not mathematics, for AP proved FLT in 1991, see below.

Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, why is this stalker arsewipe allowed to even post in sci.math or sci.physics, instead, he should be flushed down the toilet some 30 years ago.
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:03:19 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>Re: Showing the flaws in Stewart,Fisher & Ziebur, Ellis & Gulick, Strang, Apostol of their fake proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in AP's new book // Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology (Amazon's Kindle)
> Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics
>"mentally ill"
> I Pound His Male Rectum
> The Delicious Rump Man

AP wrote this for his new book: Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
by Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
1:20 PM, July 1, 2023



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Everytime AP goes over his science and math, some new item comes up that I can elaborate and detail more about.

In this diagram proof below, the A and B are discrete points of the Function Graph Curve with no numbers existing between A and B, and the midpoint "m" is fetched by hauling in higher Grid systems. Every number in Decimal Grid systems all the way out to infinity borderline 1*10^604 is ending in nothing but 0 digits, which insures a midpoint.

What is so fantastically different from AP's New Math proof of FTC, which Old Math could never handle, is that the derivative is actually part and parcel the same as the Function Graph Curve.

In all my proofs of FTC, I never showed the reverse of starting with a rectangular cell and then building the Function Graph Curve from the rectangle. Instead I showed just the trapezoid with the derivative inside as the right-traingle sitting atop the midpoint then swiveling-down the right-triangle to form the integral rectangle.

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

To this:

__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------

Now, let me start with a integral rectangle for a specific Grid System. Let me say I chose the Grid System to be 1000, then each cell along the x-axis is a width of 0.001 wide. Now how far out do I need to go to borrow to cover all midpoints? Well, for 0 to 0.001, I need 0.0005 to have a midpoint. Is that as far as I need to go? Will the 10,000 Grid System cover all midpoints?? Suppose I had 1.333, is the 10,000 Grid sufficient in borrowing? That comes to 0.6665 and so far so good.

So I have these cells all up and down the x-axis, and reaching all the way to 1000 on the y-axis. I do not even have a function yet that is going to criss-cross through all the widths resting on the x-axis. I do not know what the function is that the mathematics-god is going to give me to plot. Now the math-god hands me the function x^2 --> Y.

Alright, now I fill each empty cell.

Each cell is looking like this empty rectangle only very tall and thin as the height is 1000 and the width is 0.001.

__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------

And I focus on the cell from 1 to 1.001. I could pick any cell, but I chose a cell to avoid a fraction only cell, a cell away from 1. For I am teaching and students have a hard time of numbers that are fractions only-- those numbers between 0 and 1. So I chose a number equal or after 1.

__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------
1 1.001

Now I apply the function that the math-god gave me. I apply x^2 --> Y.

For 1 the x^2 is 1.

For 1.001 the x^2 is 1.002001.

In other words, I had the integral rectangle before I had the function itself, and now I graph that function.

Now I draw in that cell the A = 1 and the B = 1.002001. My cell looks like this.

B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
|A |
|____|

The midpoint of my cell "m" is 2 divided into 2.001 = 1.0005. I carved into the side wall of the integral rectangle to fetch a right triangle whose vertex points are A, and m, and B was where A is.

Now I fill in the actual function graph curve that runs through my cell, as a derivative that is a straightline segment that goes from (1,1) to (1,1.002001).

This is True Calculus, where the derivative and the function graph curve are the same thing.

In Old Math, their derivative was an alien tangent line to a curve graph at a point.

In New True Math, the derivative and the function graph curve are one and the same.

The Reason, the Utter Reason calculus is so Valuable as a math tool is that given A, it predicts what B is going to be. For heaven's sake, that is why calculus is so valuable to physics law, it tells the physics law, given A, the derivative predicts B.

Old Math professors of math are fools and village idiots that think a tangent to a point on a curved graph predicts anything, only shows us how empty headed they are in logic, Old Math professors have no logical marbles of a brain when it comes to calculus, for a tangent is not going to predict the next point of the Function graph curve.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic

My 245th published book of science

Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide.. The last two operators of math are derivative and integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous breakdowns. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has made math the worst science and filled with error.

Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper. Those three dots after the numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0C9P5F755
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ June 27, 2023
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 521 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 100 pages

My 6th published book

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface: Truthful proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

Snail of Math and Green Banded Broodsac Nemotode of Physics Archimedes
"failure" Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:

> Your a failure Andrew Wiles of math, a utter low class failure.

StupidPlutonium, how could a lowlife such as yourself call a superior
(an extreme superior in this case) person a failure? Look at what Wiles
has accomplished so far. He received the Abel Prize, the Copley Medal,
the Schock Prize, the Fermat Prize, and a zillion other mathematical
prizes. Of course his most famous accomplishment was proving Fermat's
Last Theorem. He was even knighted and has an asteroid named for him.

What has StupidPlutonium accomplished in the last 30 years? 30 years of
failure! But you are "famous" as a major Usenet crackpot.

> Why you are so stupid in math logic, you never even saw that Euler had no proof in exponent 3 for Euler forgot that a proof of exp 3 required him to prove all three A,B,C are not even numbers, no, Euler just was too dumb in logic same as you Andrew to realize he had to prove A,B,C were not all three even.

Trivial! If A, B, C are all even, just divide them by 2 and get a new
set of A, B, C! It's trivially obvious that 2^N can be factored out of
an equation A^N+B^N=C^N if A, B, C are all even.

> And to put a finer point on it-- why you Andrew Wiles is a math failure, is that you are so stupid in geometry as to still think a slant cut of cone is a ellipse when it is a oval.

Of course Wiles understands why an ellipse is a conic section! It's
trivial to prove the cone-plane intersection has two axes of symmetry,
for example.

If you actually talked to him on Usenet (before the cranks, such as
yourself killed it), it's too bad some of his smarts didn't rub off on
you. At least your stupidity didn't rub off on him.

> AP, Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics and Logic

On Sun Jul 2 22:57:45 2023 Volney wrote:
> Snail of Math and Green Banded Broodsac Nemotode of Physics Archimedes
> "failure" Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
>
> > Your a failure Andrew Wiles of math, a utter low class failure.
>
> StupidPlutonium, how could a lowlife such as yourself call a superior
> (an extreme superior in this case) person a failure? Look at what Wiles
> has accomplished so far. He received the Abel Prize, the Copley Medal,
> the Schock Prize, the Fermat Prize, and a zillion other mathematical
> prizes. Of course his most famous accomplishment was proving Fermat's
> Last Theorem. He was even knighted and has an asteroid named for him.
>
> What has StupidPlutonium accomplished in the last 30 years? 30 years of
> failure! But you are "famous" as a major Usenet crackpot.

*
Volney: Obviously you are right and our famous Archimedes Putonium is a disturbed crackpot. He touts the muon as the "true" electron, obviousy unaware that the muon is 200 times the mass of the electron, and THEREFORE completely unsstable, breaking up into smaller particles. The muon life time is, as I recall, 4 microseconds. (Check this.)
But what should we do? As a minimum, we should advise young mothers of up-and-coming children, that his mathematics (and physics) are totally wrong and incoherent.

Please send a note to readers of this group that the maths and physics of the crackpot, Arcimedes Plotonium are completely unreliable and dead wrong.

You will be doing the UseNet world a big favor.

AP: Please write Ohm's Law here:________________

earle
* >
> > Why you are so stupid in math logic, you never even saw that Euler had no proof in exponent 3 for Euler forgot that a proof of exp 3 required him to prove all three A,B,C are not even numbers, no, Euler just was too dumb in logic same as you Andrew to realize he had to prove A,B,C were not all three even.
>
> Trivial! If A, B, C are all even, just divide them by 2 and get a new
> set of A, B, C! It's trivially obvious that 2^N can be factored out of
> an equation A^N+B^N=C^N if A, B, C are all even.
>
> > And to put a finer point on it-- why you Andrew Wiles is a math failure, is that you are so stupid in geometry as to still think a slant cut of cone is a ellipse when it is a oval.
>
> Of course Wiles understands why an ellipse is a conic section! It's
> trivial to prove the cone-plane intersection has two axes of symmetry,
> for example.
>
> If you actually talked to him on Usenet (before the cranks, such as
> yourself killed it), it's too bad some of his smarts didn't rub off on
> you. At least your stupidity didn't rub off on him.
>
> > AP, Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics and Logic
>

On 7/2/2023 11:46 PM, Earle wrote:
> On Sun Jul 2 22:57:45 2023 Volney wrote:
>> Snail of Math and Green Banded Broodsac Nemotode of Physics Archimedes
>> "failure" Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
>>
>>> Your a failure Andrew Wiles of math, a utter low class failure.
>>
>> StupidPlutonium, how could a lowlife such as yourself call a superior
>> (an extreme superior in this case) person a failure? Look at what Wiles
>> has accomplished so far. He received the Abel Prize, the Copley Medal,
>> the Schock Prize, the Fermat Prize, and a zillion other mathematical
>> prizes. Of course his most famous accomplishment was proving Fermat's
>> Last Theorem. He was even knighted and has an asteroid named for him.
>>
>> What has StupidPlutonium accomplished in the last 30 years? 30 years of
>> failure! But you are "famous" as a major Usenet crackpot.
>
> *
> Volney: Obviously you are right and our famous Archimedes Putonium is a disturbed crackpot. He touts the muon as the "true" electron, obviousy unaware that the muon is 200 times the mass of the electron, and THEREFORE completely unsstable, breaking up into smaller particles. The muon life time is, as I recall, 4 microseconds. (Check this.)
> But what should we do? As a minimum, we should advise young mothers of up-and-coming children, that his mathematics (and physics) are totally wrong and incoherent.
>
> Please send a note to readers of this group that the maths and physics of the crackpot, Arcimedes Plotonium are completely unreliable and dead wrong.
>
> You will be doing the UseNet world a big favor.

I frequently post this when ArchiePoo tries to push one of his "books":

> WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS: Archimedes Plutonium is
> offering to teach your children his broken physics and math. BEWARE! He
> will corrupt the minds of your children! Mr. Plutonium is not content to
> be a failure of math and physics all by himself. He wants everyone else
> to fail as well! He teaches bizarre false physics and math, such as
> atoms contain the unstable muon, the ellipse isn't a conic section, that
> there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, that a sine wave
> isn't sinusoidal but semicircles, cycloids or parabolas (depending on
> his mood), plus many, many other instances of bad math and physics.
>
> Plutonium has previously tried to corrupt our youth by posting his books
> on Usenet. That has failed until now, perhaps in part due to the fact
> Usenet is an old, dying medium, which few modern students even know of,
> much less use. However, Mr. Plutonium has somehow duped Amazon into
> providing his dangerous books for free on Kindle. This has greatly
> increased the danger to our students!
>
> One of his dangerous tricks is teach false Boolean logic such as 10 AND
> 2 = 12. His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a
> false statement that nobody believes, such as 10 OR 2 = 12, say that it
> is false (which it is), but then he'll try to replace it with another
> similar false statement such as 10 AND 2 = 12, in order to really
> confuse future computer scientists. Plutonium is taking advantage of the
> fact that AND means different things in Boolean logic and elementary
> arithmetic, as AND is an informal synonym for plus/addition. It is
> important for future computer scientists to remember that in the bitwise
> Boolean logic used by modern computers, 10 OR 2 = 10 and 10 AND 2 = 2.
> Of course in pure Boolean logic the only possible values are true and
> false (1 or 0), so in pure Boolean logic the statements "10 AND 2" and
> "10 OR 2" don't even make sense. Don't let evil Plutonium's bad logic
> confuse you!
>
> Plutonium has been targeting children as young as 5. A new attempt to
> corrupt the minds of young children is to teach that the alphabet has 12
> letters, 6 vowels and 6 consonants. This sounds like a great way to
> keep our children from reading!
>
> Nobody knows why Plutonium wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like
> this. Perhaps Plutonium is envious of their potential success, which he
> never had because he is a failure at math and science. Plutonium is not
> content to be a failure at math and physics all by himself. He wants
> everyone to fail as well. Some claim Plutonium is an agent of China, in
> order for China to dominate the world economy. Maybe he is a minion of
> Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Most likely, however, he is an agent of
> Putin and Russia, since Plutonium has previously attempted to summon
> Russian robots in 2017 "to create a new, true mathematics" in an attempt
> to destroy mathematics.
>
> Additionally, Plutonium has started a Cult of Failure. He is trying to
> convince students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god of
> Failure. This cult is anti-science and anti-mathematics. Its only goal
> is to promote failure in math and science.
>
> There is some evidence this Cult of Failure may be a suicide cult.
> Plutonium has advocated that the "good guy" nations join into a
> supernation and threaten to "flatten" the (nuclear armed) "bad guy"
> nations who misbehave. The idea may to initiate an all-out nuclear
> war when "bad guy" nations retaliate. Not simply is Plutonium or his
> cult committing suicide but would take Planet Earth with them. As the
> war in Ukraine continues, Plutonium keeps asking NATO to attack the
> Russians, starting a nuclear WW3, which he feels is unavoidable. More
> evidence of Plutonium's Cult of Failure being a suicide cult.
>
> Plutonium is now encouraging resistance fighters fighting the regimes
> in Russia and Iran to attack power lines in Tehran and Moscow by
> carrying long vertical aluminum poles under them, presumably to short
> them out, complete with a diagram. Obviously, this will not end well
> for for the resistance fighter. The question is, did he do this because
> he is Putin's stooge trying to kill off resistance fighters? Or is this
> part of Plutonium's Suicide Cult of Failure, meaning this is merely a
> suggestion how to commit suicide while failing to harm the regimes? Or
> both?
>
> But the point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you one of his
> dangerous books. Especially now since they are available for free from
> otherwise legitimate Amazon.

> AP: Please write Ohm's Law here:________________
>
> earle
> *
Good luck with that!