Kibo on mental illness.

Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
William,...Jim Burns 508 WM Logic
Gottingen Univ physics
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:03:19 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics
>"mentally ill"

Why Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney, because they fail at doing a valid geometry proof of calculus or is it that they are too stupid to even ask the simple question, which is the atom's electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle??

Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

Gottingen Univ math

Metin Tolan

Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu

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

Andrew, will your entire life be that of fake and con-art math, or is there some room for growth and maturity-- slant cut of cone is Oval, not your mindless ellipse. And can you comprehend a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is your math all a waste, waste of time, waste of science?

You are 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 allowed to even post in sci..math or sci.physics with his 938 is 12% short of 945
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.