Joao Rodrigues,Somnath Bhattacharyya, Python,Betsy Jonck,Charlotte Brennan,Witwatersrand Univ spam mill echo chamber, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand 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? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

The spam mill echo chamber from South Africa-- John Gabriel with his playful acting spamletts:
Eram semper recta photo profile
Eram semper recta
,...
Python
43
6:51PM
You are of your father the devil..


>
> Re: Markus Klyver greatest math fool of Sweden-- thinks an ellipse is a conic section
> by Dan Christensen Aug 2, 2017, 11:52:21 PM
>
> Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> Physics dept
> Joao Rodrigues
> Somnath Bhattacharyya
> John Carter
> Andrew Chen
> Darell Comins
> Robert De Mello Koch
> Arthur Every
> Andrew Forbes
> Kelvin Goldstein
> Vishnu Jejjala
> Robert Joubert
> Jonathan Keartland
> Nukri Komin
> Bruce Mellado
> Deena Naidoo
> Mervin Naidoo
> Alex Quandt
> Elias Sideras-Haddad
> Martin Ntwaeaborwa
>
>
> Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
>
> Dr. D. Brijlall
> Dr. D Day
> Dr. DB Lortan
> Dr. A Maharaj
> Dr. S Moyo
> Dr. S Rajah
> Dr. D Singh
>
> University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> Betsie Jonck
> Jesse Alt
> Margaret Archibald
> Charlotte Brennan
> Sonja Currie
> Alexander Davison
> Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> Marie Grobbelaar
> Yorick Hardy
> Meira Hockman
> Sameerah Jamal
> Abdul Kara
> Arnold Knopfmacher
> Wen Chi Kou
> Christopher Kriel
> Rugare Kwashira
> Florian Luca
> Ronnie Maartens
> Carminda Mennen
> Manfred Moller
> Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> Augustine Munagi
> Loyiso Nongxa
> Bruce Watson
> Yevhen Zelenyuk
>
> 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> 3> 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 26Jan2022. 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 November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 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 ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > >
> > > > #11-2, 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)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > Preface:
> > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > >
> > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > Language: English
> > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > Lending: Enabled
> 
> > > > | /
> > > > | /
> > > > |/______ x
> > > >
> > > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies..
> > > >
> > > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> > > >
> > > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> > > >
> > > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> > > >
> > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> 3> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> 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
> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:05:43 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >Re: Hi, I am Arindam Banerjee a arsewipe of physics,so stupid in physics I am too dumb to ask the question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle and thus I attempt to keep Indian Institute of Technology as dumb as Arindam Banerj
> > Look, the twins are fighting over who is the bigger fish in the tiny
> > stagnant mud puddle of sci.physics again!
>
> Kibo on I Pound His Male Rectum.
>
> Andrew Wiles, William, Wolfgang Mueckenheim, why Kibo?? Because they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, or is it because none can do a valid-- let alone geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (see below)
>
> William photo profile
> William
> ,...
> Gus Gassmann
> 477
> 3:48 PM
> WM Logic
> 
>
> 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 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
> 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.
>
> Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
>
> As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> • Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)
> 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.

Robert Joubert,Jonathan Keartland,Betsy Jonck,Charlotte Brennan,Witwatersrand Univ spam mill echo chamber, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand 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? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
>
> The spam mill echo chamber from South Africa-- John Gabriel with his playful acting spamletts:
> Eram semper recta photo profile
> Eram semper recta
> ,...
> Python
> 43
> 6:51PM
> You are of your father the devil..
> 
> >
> > Re: Markus Klyver greatest math fool of Sweden-- thinks an ellipse is a conic section
> > by Dan Christensen Aug 2, 2017, 11:52:21 PM
> >
> > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > Physics dept
> > Joao Rodrigues
> > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > John Carter
> > Andrew Chen
> > Darell Comins
> > Robert De Mello Koch
> > Arthur Every
> > Andrew Forbes
> > Kelvin Goldstein
> > Vishnu Jejjala
> > Robert Joubert
> > Jonathan Keartland
> > Nukri Komin
> > Bruce Mellado
> > Deena Naidoo
> > Mervin Naidoo
> > Alex Quandt
> > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> >
> >
> > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> >
> > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > Dr. D Day
> > Dr. DB Lortan
> > Dr. A Maharaj
> > Dr. S Moyo
> > Dr. S Rajah
> > Dr. D Singh
> >
> > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > Betsie Jonck
> > Jesse Alt
> > Margaret Archibald
> > Charlotte Brennan
> > Sonja Currie
> > Alexander Davison
> > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > Marie Grobbelaar
> > Yorick Hardy
> > Meira Hockman
> > Sameerah Jamal
> > Abdul Kara
> > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > Wen Chi Kou
> > Christopher Kriel
> > Rugare Kwashira
> > Florian Luca
> > Ronnie Maartens
> > Carminda Mennen
> > Manfred Moller
> > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > Augustine Munagi
> > Loyiso Nongxa
> > Bruce Watson
> > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> >
> > 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > 3> 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 26Jan2022. 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 November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 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 ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > >
> > > > > #11-2, 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)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > > Preface:
> > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > Language: English
> > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > 
> > > > > | /
> > > > > | /
> > > > > |/______ x
> > > > >
> > > > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> > > > >
> > > > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> > > > >
> > > > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> > > > >
> > > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > 3> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > 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
> > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:05:43 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > >Re: Hi, I am Arindam Banerjee a arsewipe of physics,so stupid in physics I am too dumb to ask the question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle and thus I attempt to keep Indian Institute of Technology as dumb as Arindam Banerj
> > > Look, the twins are fighting over who is the bigger fish in the tiny
> > > stagnant mud puddle of sci.physics again!
> >
> > Kibo on I Pound His Male Rectum.
> >
> > Andrew Wiles, William, Wolfgang Mueckenheim, why Kibo?? Because they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, or is it because none can do a valid-- let alone geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (see below)
> >
> > William photo profile
> > William
> > ,...
> > Gus Gassmann
> > 477
> > 3:48 PM
> > WM Logic
> > 
> >
> > 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 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
> > 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.
> >
> > Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
> >
> > As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)
> > 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.

Ronnie Maartens,Carminda Mennen,Betsy Jonck,Charlotte Brennan,Witwatersrand Univ spam mill echo chamber, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand 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? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

The Spam Mill Echo Chamber of John Gabriel

2 The spam mill echo chamber from South Africa-- John Gabriel with his playful acting spamletts:
> Eram semper recta photo profile
> Eram semper recta
> ,...
> Python
> 43
> 6:51PM
> You are of your father the devil..
> 
> >
> > Re: Markus Klyver greatest math fool of Sweden-- thinks an ellipse is a conic section
> > by Dan Christensen Aug 2, 2017, 11:52:21 PM
> >
> > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > Physics dept
> > Joao Rodrigues
> > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > John Carter
> > Andrew Chen
> > Darell Comins
> > Robert De Mello Koch
> > Arthur Every
> > Andrew Forbes
> > Kelvin Goldstein
> > Vishnu Jejjala
> > Robert Joubert
> > Jonathan Keartland
> > Nukri Komin
> > Bruce Mellado
> > Deena Naidoo
> > Mervin Naidoo
> > Alex Quandt
> > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> >
> >
> > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> >
> > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > Dr. D Day
> > Dr. DB Lortan
> > Dr. A Maharaj
> > Dr. S Moyo
> > Dr. S Rajah
> > Dr. D Singh
> >
> > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > Betsie Jonck
> > Jesse Alt
> > Margaret Archibald
> > Charlotte Brennan
> > Sonja Currie
> > Alexander Davison
> > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > Marie Grobbelaar
> > Yorick Hardy
> > Meira Hockman
> > Sameerah Jamal
> > Abdul Kara
> > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > Wen Chi Kou
> > Christopher Kriel
> > Rugare Kwashira
> > Florian Luca
> > Ronnie Maartens
> > Carminda Mennen
> > Manfred Moller
> > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > Augustine Munagi
> > Loyiso Nongxa
> > Bruce Watson
> > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> >
> > 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > 3> 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 26Jan2022. 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 November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 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 ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > >
> > > > > #11-2, 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)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > > Preface:
> > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > Language: English
> > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > 
> > > > > | /
> > > > > | /
> > > > > |/______ x
> > > > >
> > > > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> > > > >
> > > > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> > > > >
> > > > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> > > > >
> > > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > 3> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > 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
> > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 8:05:43 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > >Re: Hi, I am Arindam Banerjee a arsewipe of physics,so stupid in physics I am too dumb to ask the question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle and thus I attempt to keep Indian Institute of Technology as dumb as Arindam Banerj
> > > Look, the twins are fighting over who is the bigger fish in the tiny
> > > stagnant mud puddle of sci.physics again!
> >
> > Kibo on I Pound His Male Rectum.
> >
> > Andrew Wiles, William, Wolfgang Mueckenheim, why Kibo?? Because they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, or is it because none can do a valid-- let alone geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (see below)
> >
> > William photo profile
> > William
> > ,...
> > Gus Gassmann
> > 477
> > 3:48 PM
> > WM Logic
> > 
> >
> > 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 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
> > 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.
> >
> > Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
> >
> > As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)
> > 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.