Germany's calculus failure Wolfgang Mueckenheim + William+Fritz Feldhase. WM cannot even do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for the failure WM cannot even see slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, for WM is intellectually blind. Is all of Gottingen Univ blind in math????

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)

Calculus failures Jim Burns,Fritz Feldhase, William, Wolfgang Mueckenheim

Jim Burns
153
unread,
The mathematical constraints of set theory
On 7/5/2023 5:50 AM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Mittwoch, > 5. Juli 2023 um 00:43:11 UTC+
12:14 PM

William's profile photo
William
, …
Fritz Feldhase
462
unread,
WM Logic
On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 5:55:53 PM UTC+2, WM wrote: > Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Mittwoch, 5.
11:46 AM


Germany's calculus failure Wolfgang Mueckenheim + William+Fritz Feldhase. WM cannot even do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for the failure WM cannot even see slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, for WM is intellectually blind. Is all of Gottingen Univ blind in math????
>
>
> 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)
>
> 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.

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

William profile photo
William
,...
FromTheRafters
758
WM Logic

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

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

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

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

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

Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
>
> Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>
>
> Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
>

> #12-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

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

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:16:25 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> [snip]

.... Dan Christensen ...

[snip]

Time for another spanking, Archie Poo! When will you learn? Once again...

From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope of being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows?

In AP's OWN WORDS that, over the years here, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:

"Negative numbers are the witches and hobgoblins of insane kook mathematicians. "
--Dec. 7, 2022

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Updated version (repetition removed):

"Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as you are
How great thou are, are, are, are.
Oh Atom Plutonium, the God that you are
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
Oh Atom Plutonium, Great God of Atoms
Atom of Atoms
Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as thou art"
--March 24, 2023

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com