Gerald Edgar fails math with his slant cut of cone ellipse when it is a Oval and never a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (see below)

The question here on Gerald, is whether for once in all his life, he sees and does a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or, which I think, Gerald is blind to math for his entire life.

On Thursday, January 6, 1994 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-6, Gerald Edgar wrote:
> Mathematical Cranks

On Wednesday, August 24, 1994 at 1:47:42 AM UTC-5, Terry Tao wrote:
> There's no paradox in this. This is because there are three types of
> mathematicians: those who are intuitionists, and those who are not.
> :-)
> --
> Terry Tao Math Dept., Princeton University (t...@math.princeton.edu)
> i mi pacna da ni'o .i mi caki pacna di'e .itu'e ro ma'arbi'i ba galtu .i ro
> cmana ba dizlo .i ro rufsu tumla ba xutla .i ro korcu pluta ba sirji .i le
> la jegvon. kamymisno ba tolcanci .i ro se rectu ba simkansa viska ra

Terry, you forgot the type that is blind to geometry, who think a slant cut of cone is ellipse when in reality is a Oval, and these type, like you Terry are failures of math who cannot do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, let alone a geometry proof of FTC.

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 ‏ : ‎ 530 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 ‏ : ‎ 116 pages

AP, King of Science, especially Physics and Logic

On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:03:22 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"Imp of Science"
> "always wrong"

P.S. Someone in the Kibo gang of stalkers has again hacked and disabled AP's music. The gang needs jail time.

On Thursday, January 6, 1994 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-6, Gerald Edgar wrote:
> Mathematical Cranks

2-Gerald Edgar fails math with his slant cut of cone ellipse when it is a Oval and never a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (see below)
>
> The question here on Gerald, is whether for once in all his life, he sees and does a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or, which I think, Gerald is blind to math for his entire life.
> On Thursday, January 6, 1994 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-6, Gerald Edgar wrote:
> > Mathematical Cranks
> On Wednesday, August 24, 1994 at 1:47:42 AM UTC-5, Terry Tao wrote:
> > There's no paradox in this. This is because there are three types of
> > mathematicians: those who are intuitionists, and those who are not.
> > :-)
> > --
> > Terry Tao Math Dept., Princeton University (t...@math.princeton.edu)
> > i mi pacna da ni'o .i mi caki pacna di'e .itu'e ro ma'arbi'i ba galtu .i ro
> > cmana ba dizlo .i ro rufsu tumla ba xutla .i ro korcu pluta ba sirji .i le
> > la jegvon. kamymisno ba tolcanci .i ro se rectu ba simkansa viska ra
>
> Terry, you forgot the type that is blind to geometry, who think a slant cut of cone is ellipse when in reality is a Oval, and these type, like you Terry are failures of math who cannot do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, let alone a geometry proof of FTC.
>
>
> 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 ‏ : ‎ 530 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 ‏ : ‎ 116 pages
>
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics and Logic
>
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:03:22 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"Imp of Science"
> > "always wrong"
>
> P.S. Someone in the Kibo gang of stalkers has again hacked and disabled AP's music. The gang needs jail time.