Thomas Hales victimizes students by his inability to do a geometry proof of calculus, fundamental theorem says Dan Christensen of Canada. Also, Hales never defines infinity with respect to finite, to know of a borderline between the two, which drastically alters the dynamics of a proof of Kepler Packing, so Hales KPP is just con-art, believed-in by only gullible fools. Even more damaging to Hales work in geometry, is the fool never realized that the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, yet this math wreck thinks he proved Kepler Packing.

Three times on Wedn 4Aug, Dan Christensen had to spam stalk the Warning, maybe he can borrow the Swiss mountain horn from spammer Jan Burse:
On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:32:15 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled


World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. 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". 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.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 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)

#8-3, 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
Length: 61 pages

File Size: 1241 KB
Print Length: 61 pages
Publication Date: March 20, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07NMV8NQQ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

y  z
|  /
| /
|/______ 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.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium

1> Thomas Hales victimizes students by his inability to do a geometry proof of calculus, fundamental theorem says Dan Christensen of Canada. Also, Hales never defines infinity with respect to finite, to know of a borderline between the two, which drastically alters the dynamics of a proof of Kepler Packing, so Hales KPP is just con-art, believed-in by only gullible fools. Even more damaging to Hales work in geometry, is the fool never realized that the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, yet this math wreck thinks he proved Kepler Packing.

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 7:43:25 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of
> Three times on Wedn 4Aug, Dan Christensen had to spam stalk the Warning, maybe he can borrow the Swiss mountain horn from spammer Jan Burse:
> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 5:32:15 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> 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.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> 
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 19May2021. 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".. 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.
>
> Length: 137 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1307 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 137 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)
>
>
>
> #8-3, 24th published book
>
> World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.
>
> Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
> Length: 61 pages
>
> File Size: 1241 KB
> Print Length: 61 pages
> Publication Date: March 20, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07NMV8NQQ
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: Not Enabled 
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported 
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> y z
> | /
> | /
> |/______ 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.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium

2- Thomas Hales victimizes students by his inability to do a geometry proof of calculus, fundamental theorem says Dan Christensen of Canada. Also, Hales never defines infinity with respect to finite, to know of a borderline between the two, which drastically alters the dynamics of a proof of Kepler Packing, so Hales KPP is just con-art, believed-in by only gullible fools. Even more damaging to Hales work in geometry, is the fool never realized that the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, yet this math wreck thinks he proved Kepler Packing. And Hales was so dumb in logic, for it is logic that you need to do math proofs correctly, so dumb in logic was Hales that he still uses Boole logic of 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction for the fool never understood that Boole's AND truth table is TFFF when it correctly is TTTF. So how did Hales con-art the world into thinking he has a proof of anything?

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 9:55:58 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled



World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. 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". 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.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 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)

#8-3, 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
Length: 61 pages

File Size: 1241 KB
Print Length: 61 pages
Publication Date: March 20, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07NMV8NQQ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

y z
| /
| /
|/______ 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.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

Thomas Hales fails math-- bigtime-- never a geometry proof of Calculus, Fundamental Theorem, FTC. Hales was woven of the same fabric as Wiles-- chase after fame and fortune by doing a con-art unsolved problem, while totally ignoring the Big Math Of Our Time-- a geometry proof of FTC. And ironic that Hales chosen con-art math was in geometry-- Kepler Packing, but clown Hales never defined infinity and never investigated how a borderline can drastically alter the results of a Kepler hexagonal-close-pack. So Hales is a egregious con artists plying through math, as he bankrupts university math departments with his computer programming demands.

So, Thomas Hales, where is your geometry proof of FTC, or are you like Wiles and Tao, run and hide, hide and run. While you rake in the money from a con-art Kepler Packing b.s..

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 3:24:17 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Liar.
>
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

On Monday, March 12, 2018
> Dan Christensen writes:
>
>
> Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
>
> 1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? ____________
>
> 2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 ____________
>
> 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
>
> 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).
>
>

You left all the answers blank on your test

>Dan

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 12:30:31 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"pretend mathematician"
>"math hater"
> fails at math and science:

Thomas Hales fails math by never a geometry proof of Calculus, Fundamental Theorem.

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. 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". 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.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 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)

y z
| /
| /
|/______ 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.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

And so here, another case of a fame and fortune seeker, by one who never had the abilities to conquer a proof of Kepler Packing Problem just the same as Andrew Wiles taking on Fermat's Last Theorem. There are thousands upon thousands of old men, even women only not as plagued as the men, who reach a age in their career in math and look around and see that they are not famous in math, and then are radicalized in mind to thinking-- they have to become famous in math. In other words, they become cranks and crackpots, even though they have no ability in the quest they then embark upon.

There is one measure of whether a person should take on such a mission as solving a outstanding unproven conjecture. I have mentioned it often, even with a great historical fable or legend story. The story of King Arthur. And the king will be known as the one who can pull the sword out of the rock, and no others. Well, that is legend and fable, but in science it is "Can you fix or clean up math of the past, for which no-one else before, even spotted or know was false."

So, we ask, did Andrew Wiles ever fix any math before he embarked on FLT? Did Thomas Hales ever spot any fake and false math of the past and fixed it, before embarking on Kepler Packing. As far as I know, no, neither fixed or cleaned up any Old Math before they became crack crackpots of FLT or Kepler Packing.

So what I am saying, is a genius of math is recognizable first, by whether he/she can clean up some Old Math before embarking on a unproven conjecture..

If memory is correct, Gauss was a genius and his first clean up was something about the 17-gon, where it was thought there was no straightedge and compass solution.

So, what I am saying is, if you want to prove a long outstanding math conjecture, show us first, you can clean up more mundane Old Math fakeries, before you embark on something old and famous and unproven. Show us you have talent to go after big items. To my knowledge Wiles and Hales never stepped through such rigor and curriculum. And that is sad because Wiles should have noticed that Euler's FLT in exp3 was fakery. And Hales should have noticed that the ellipse was a slant cut in cylinder never the cone for that is a oval.

So, Wiles and Hales had no talent, none whatsoever to be tackling FLT or Kepler Packing, but just two old cranks that became crackpots as they lust for fame and fortune.

AP

Now the only valid and sane use of computers in the Kepler Packing Problem are computers to figure out how to rearrange the uniform size balls near the walls and ceiling of the cube that is infinity.

For no-one really expected Thomas Hales to have a logical brain to do KPP, to ask logical questions, to proceed logically in tackling KPP.

The first question was a well defined infinity and that comes from Huygens tractrix that infinity is a borderline at 1*10^604 where pi has its first three zero digits in a row. This allows the tractix area to catch up with the associated circle area, hence, thus, infinity.

And, logically, this is the only way in the world one can properly define infinity versus finite, a border between the two concepts, otherwise you have only one concept.

So now we have a borderline, and do we then say the Universe is a cube of side length 1*10^604 so we have to fill that cube with tiny Kepler unit balls. Or do we say the Cosmic infinity is a sphere and a borderline filled up to that cosmic sphere.

So, like most of us, who have had a suitcase and packing it for travel. We want it full so as not to bounce around the contents. And so we pack it and at the end we shift things around so everything is tight.

And this is what the dumb ignorant Hales totally missed out on, which is expected when you have no logical brains to be doing Kepler Packing.

Pick a borderline say 10. Pick a size of Kepler ball, say a diameter of 1. Say the cosmic infinity is a cube, I prefer cube over that of sphere.

Start packing the cube of side 10 with 1 unit balls from a wall and work to the far wall and start with the hexagonal close pack. I did this some decades back with actual cubes and balls and my results are published in my book as also posted to sci.math Usenet.

Turns out, that hexagonal close pack is the majority of packing but once we reach the other wall we can rearrange to fit more balls than if we used solely and only the hexagonal close pack. Much like our tourist stuffing his suitcase, that near the end, we do a bit of rearranging to fit in more.

This is what the ignorant Hales needed a computer for. To start out with hexagonal close pack, and finish off with a alternate packing that exceeds the hexagonal close pack if that were the only allowed pattern. You need the computer, only for the task of that end wall rearrangement.

24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
Length: 61 pages

File Size: 1241 KB
Print Length: 61 pages
Publication Date: March 20, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07NMV8NQQ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

If not for Usenet, sci.math, there would be 200 con-art fake math proofs, instead of just Wiles and Hales b.s. con-art.

You see, the freedom of speech is a potent, extremely potent weapon against corruption and con-art in science.

Thomas Hales fails math-- bigtime-- never a geometry proof of Calculus, Fundamental Theorem, FTC. Hales was woven of the same fabric as Wiles-- chase after fame and fortune by doing a con-art unsolved problem, while totally ignoring the Big Math Of Our Time-- a geometry proof of FTC. And ironic that Hales chosen con-art math was in geometry-- Kepler Packing, but clown Hales never defined infinity and never investigated how a borderline can drastically alter the results of a Kepler hexagonal-close-pack. So Hales is a egregious con artists plying through math, as he bankrupts university math departments with his computer programming demands.

So, Thomas Hales, where is your geometry proof of FTC, or are you like Wiles and Tao, run and hide, hide and run. While you rake in the money from a con-art Kepler Packing b.s..

And so here, another case of a fame and fortune seeker, by one who never had the abilities to conquer a proof of Kepler Packing Problem just the same as Andrew Wiles taking on Fermat's Last Theorem. There are thousands upon thousands of old men, even women only not as plagued as the men, who reach a age in their career in math and look around and see that they are not famous in math, and then are radicalized in mind to thinking-- they have to become famous in math. In other words, they become cranks and crackpots, even though they have no ability in the quest they then embark upon.

There is one measure of whether a person should take on such a mission as solving a outstanding unproven conjecture. I have mentioned it often, even with a great historical fable or legend story. The story of King Arthur. And the king will be known as the one who can pull the sword out of the rock, and no others. Well, that is legend and fable, but in science it is "Can you fix or clean up math of the past, for which no-one else before, even spotted or know was false."

So, we ask, did Andrew Wiles ever fix any math before he embarked on FLT? Did Thomas Hales ever spot any fake and false math of the past and fixed it, before embarking on Kepler Packing. As far as I know, no, neither fixed or cleaned up any Old Math before they became crank crackpots of FLT or Kepler Packing.

So what I am saying, is a genius of math is recognizable first, by whether he/she can spot and fix mistakes and errors in Old Math, clean up some Old Math before embarking on a unproven conjecture.

If memory is correct, Gauss was a genius and his first clean up was something about the 17-gon, where it was thought there was no straightedge and compass solution.

So, what I am saying is, if you want to prove a long outstanding math conjecture, show us first, you can clean up more mundane Old Math fakeries, before you embark on something old and famous and unproven. Show us you have talent to go after big ticket items. To my knowledge Wiles and Hales never stepped through such rigor and curriculum. And that is sad because Wiles should have noticed that Euler's FLT in exp3 was fakery. And Hales should have noticed that the ellipse was a slant cut in cylinder never the cone for that is a oval.

So, Wiles and Hales had no talent, none whatsoever to be tackling FLT or Kepler Packing, but just two old cranks that became crackpots as they lust for fame and fortune. But they needed some help in the math community to foist and lift their fakery onto the general public. For Wiles, the help came from being a journal editor, so Wiles can print anything he wants and say it is true and vetted. While for Hales, his road to con-art success was look at how a computer proof by Appel & Haken was so much of a commercial success, so he connived to do another computer silly proof, for Hales certainly had no logical fiber to do a sound logic proof of Kepler Packing. And this computer proof nonsense bowls over any complaints or objections because who wants to get in the way of commercial money making by asking for validity. And, Hales enlisted a friend of Laszlo Toth, so that instead of actual logic sound validity, here we have math proofs accepted because "so and so says so".

So seeing the success of a mindless 4 Color Mapping proof by Appel & Haken where the eyes and attention are shifted to the novelty of a computer doing the proof, and taking attention away from the fact the Appel & Haken proof is invalid trash, starting off with a Reductio Ad Absurdum and employing a computer. Seeing this success of a con-art math accepted only tantalized the lip smacking tongue of Thomas Hales to have his own con-art fakery be accepted for world wide fame and fortune. There is more of that where Andrew Wiles raked in the awards for his fakery.

Now the only valid and sane use of computers in the Kepler Packing Problem are computers to figure out how to rearrange the uniform size balls near the walls and ceiling of the cube that is infinity.

For no-one really expected Thomas Hales to have a logical brain to do KPP, to ask logical questions, to proceed logically in tackling KPP.

The first question was a well defined infinity and that comes from Huygens tractrix that infinity is a borderline at 1*10^604 where pi has its first three zero digits in a row. This allows the tractix area to catch up with the associated circle area, hence, thus, infinity.

And, logically, this is the only way in the world one can properly define infinity versus finite, a border between the two concepts, otherwise you have only one concept.

So now we have a borderline, and do we then say the Universe is a cube of side length 1*10^604 so we have to fill that cube with tiny Kepler unit balls. Or do we say the Cosmic infinity is a sphere and a borderline filled up to that cosmic sphere.

So, like most of us, who have had a suitcase and packing it for travel. We want it full so as not to bounce around the contents. And so we pack it and at the end we shift things around so everything is tight.

And this is what the dumb ignorant Hales totally missed out on, which is expected when you have no logical brains to be doing Kepler Packing.

Pick a borderline say 10. Pick a size of Kepler ball, say a diameter of 1. Say the cosmic infinity is a cube, I prefer cube over that of sphere.

Start packing the cube of side 10 with 1 unit balls from a wall and work to the far wall and start with the hexagonal close pack. I did this some decades back with actual cubes and balls and my results are published in my book as also posted to sci.math Usenet.

Turns out, that hexagonal close pack is the majority of packing but once we reach the other wall we can rearrange to fit more balls than if we used solely and only the hexagonal close pack. Much like our tourist stuffing his suitcase, that near the end, we do a bit of rearranging to fit in more.

This is what the ignorant Hales needed a computer for. To start out with hexagonal close pack, and finish off with a alternate packing that exceeds the hexagonal close pack if that were the only allowed pattern. You need the computer, only for the task of that end wall rearrangement.

24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
Length: 61 pages

File Size: 1241 KB
Print Length: 61 pages
Publication Date: March 20, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07NMV8NQQ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

So, there we were in 1993 and AP posts his proof of Kepler Packing in 1993, not knowing himself that a proper well defined infinity meant a borderline between finite and infinity. No, AP would have to take until 2009.

Concept that Infinity = a borderline between finite and infinite was discovered by AP 2009. Simple beautiful idea-- there must be a borderline between finite and infinite, otherwise, all is just one and the same, and not two different concepts. And so I defined the concept of infinity itself as this border crossing.

Borderline between finite and infinity

Now this mistake in not having a correct Infinity in math, affects the Calculus by a large measure, a large degree. It is impossible to have a correct calculus, when you have a bozo-kook understanding of what is infinity.

This is probably the biggest mistake in all of pure mathematics for it
affects all other mathematics. Of course the other sciences, especially physics rarely needs to know what the correct proper infinity is. However, it does show up frequently in the best physics-- quantum electrodynamics, in which it is
often used to eliminate infinities that crop up in calculations. This physics math procedure is called Renormalization-- getting rid of the infinities..

The trouble with Old Math, is, well, they were terribly shoddy in logic, in thinking straight and clear. For a logical person, knows, that if you have a concept of finite versus infinite, the only way to handle those two concepts is to realize a border must go between them so that you can tell if any given number is finite or infinite. Otherwise, there is no infinity, if there is no borderline.

There is only one way you can have a concept of finite, by having a
concept of infinity, and the only way you can have both, is that a
borderline exists between them.

I have pinpointed that borderline from tractrix-circle analysis, from
algebraic analysis of algebraic completeness, and from angles of
regular polyhedra. The borderline in microinfinity is 1*10^-604 and in
macroinfinity is 1*10^604.

The easiest way to see the borderline is to see where pi digits ends in a three zero digits in a row.

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006 606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146 951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749 567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190 702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000

Since the Universe 3rd dimension, one would suspect that where pi digits are there first three digits in a row of 000, that such would be the borderline at infinity.

Now, for physics, that infinity is 1*10^604 for large and 1*10^-604 for the small, makes perfect sense, since in physics, it is extremely, extremely difficult to find anything above 10^200 or smaller than 10^-200, to give the reader a sense of proportion.

But getting back to AP's 1993 proof of Kepler Packing. So that AP thought Kepler Packing was a statement about DENSITY, pure density and not having to go to infinity. And as such, AP gives a proof of 12 kissing points at maximum for equal sized spheres. And the proof of density is utterly simple and easy with 12 kissing points for we compute the arc of all the spheres-- all identical and show that you can never fit 13 spheres to surround a single center sphere. You need no computers to prove density.

And swiftly in 1993 came the objections-- what about 4th, 5th and higher dimensions.

So, well, I had no well precise definition of infinity in 1993, and so I let the years pass by, knowing that I had proven Density with 12 kissing points. And in 1993, by then I had known that higher dimensions were all phony baloney, prittle prattle by ignorants and malformed minds of logic, absent of logic.

Then as the years rolled by up to 2009 was news of Thomas Hales with his ally of Dr. Toth champanioning Hales fake proof.

Somehow, Hales and Toth thought that a computer would prove hexagonal close pack is the maximum packing no matter the dimension.

But what Hales and Toth never recognized, never understood is that dimension was never a issue in Kepler Packing. No, for AP's 1993 kissing points proof was a proof of Kepler Packing density.

But, what KPP became was a conjecture of tiling to Infinity, something unknown to Hales and Toth was that infinity was a borderline. And say for example if we had 100 be the infinity borderline, then as we start in one corner of a 100 cube, and work our way to the opposite walls and ceiling, is hexagonal close pack the most dense packing? The answer is no. We start out with hexagonal close pack, but at the reach of the opposite walls and ceiling we must rearrange the kepler-spheres into a hybrid packing which fits in more kepler spheres. Something that ignorant Hales & Toth overlooked. They never had a precise definition of infinity. And they had their mindless wish of higher dimensions beyond 3rd.

In physics we can prove that the speed of light forbids a dimension of 4th and higher. The speed of light has to be a maximum constant speed in order for the laws of electrodynamics to exist. So if we had a 4th dimension, that too would break all the laws of physics electrodynamics.

So, well, AP is going to claim his true valid proof of Kepler Packing Problem and arrest the fake proof from con-artist Thomas Hales with his higher dimension computer fakery.

Hales should have used a computer to figure out the "hybrid structure of packing" as you near a borderline wall.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

An excerpt post from my book 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
Length: 61 pages

Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.physics, sci.logic
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 01:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Jul 7 2009 3:31 am
Subject: why this function of Core-HCP-Pure is important to Kepler Packing #700 new book 2nd edition: New True Mathematics

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Well, if I keep changing enough, I will find the correct function
> sooner or later.

> First off, I have to correct the data also:
> 3Cube = 27- 8 = 19
> 4Cube = 64-20 = 44
> 5Cube = 125-28 = 97
> 6Cube = 216-36 = 180

> Rather than the arctan the natural-logarithm looks better candidate

> Ln(27) = 3.29
> Ln(64) = 4.15
> Ln(125) = 4.82
> Ln(216) = 5.37

> So I need something more for the ? to get from

> 3.29 to 8
> from 4.15 to 20
> from 4.82 to 28
> from 5.37 to 36

> remembering that term is [Least Integer]

> Perhaps it is a trigonometric function as the ? such as arctan

Did the 7 Cube although cannot vouch for my accuracy

3Cube = 27- 8 = 19
4Cube = 64-20 = 44
5Cube = 125-28 = 97
6Cube = 216-36 = 180
7Cube = 343-60 = 283

Curiously the above progression of 8, 20, 28, 36, 60, ...
has two triangular-numbers of 28, 36

Maybe I should get more data, especially after 8 and 9 Cubes since that is where the layers increase beyond the length of the cube due to hollow nesting.

When I get this function or equation of Core HCP-Pure, then the remainder
empty space to be packed cycles through the integer-Cubes and thus the only three alternatives are:

Corner-edge, Oblong and HCP-pure.

So the final conclusion of the Kepler Packing Problem started in 1611 is that the most dense packing in Euclidean Space involves the HCP-pure as the bulk of the packing and at the last two layers of length width and depth can some alterations be performed so as to raise the density higher with Corner-edge and Oblong for which HCP-pure would be of a lower density. The function or equation gives the density of over 90% of a the Cubes beyond the 3Cube, remember this is all Reals beyond 3. So the empty space when we reach the three walls of interest have only the Corner-edge, Oblong or HCP-pure to pack.

In fact as you look at the above examples of the 7Cube = 343-60 = 283 a good chunk of that wasted space of 60 spheres is at the height wall.

So in the future, we can rig a computer to where we feed it a Real Number of 3 or greater and out spits a data form that tells us this:

(1) how many spheres compose the Core-HCP-pure
(2) how many unit-cube spaces were lost
(3) how much empty space on the length wall, width wall, and height wall
defined by "effective hollow to wall distance"
(4) whether there is room for a Corner-edge packing and how much of an
increase in number of spheres
(5) whether there is room for Oblong packing and how many more spheres
added than if not applied.

I have been hunting through the literature and as of yet unable to spot whether
anyone has the function or equation for Core HCP-pure. Apparently no-one bothered and perhaps no-one ever thought of this parameter as being important..

AP

Dan Christensen on failure Thomas Hales; never correcting ellipse is cylinder cut, not a conic, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus; yet victimizes the world with his nonsense of Kepler Packing.

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 2:01:27 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

AP writes: Is Hales as feeble as you Dan Christensen who cannot tell apart distinct from nondistinct?

Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.

The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 2 OR 1 = 3 and his AND as subtraction.

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 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 19May2021. 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". 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.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 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)

And so, in 1993, I offered my KPP proof saying that we simply prove you cannot surround a single sphere in 13 kissing points, and 12 is the maximum kissing points. Actually I was amazed aghast that no-one before me in 1993 saw this logical outline of a proof, a proof that takes just a tiny bit of algebra to calculate no 13 kissing points is possible. And so in 1993, I would find out what is holding up this proof of mine.

The objection was dimensions, that my proof does not take into account 4th and higher dimension.

And so, I was floored as to the insane unreasoning that objection was. I mean, no-one has proven that 4th or higher dimension even exists, and here, professors are placing such a mindless constraint upon a truly valid proof of FLT, provided we think of infinity as borderless infinity which was the thoughts of 1993.

So is there a Logic Fallacy with a name for the placing of constraints of a proof, by saying it must meet demands far beyond the logic of the conjecture. For example, why not say a Kepler Packing Problem proof must include a proof that spheres with mosquito bites is a more dense packing, as morons insisted in 1993, that 4th dimension be included. Yet 4th dimension is a illusion delusion.

Later in 2009 when I nailed down what a Well Defined Infinity was-- a borderline, then the Kepler Packing Problem turned into a entirely new endeavor.

#8-3, 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
Length: 61 pages
File Size: 1241 KB
Print Length: 61 pages
Publication Date: March 20, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07NMV8NQQ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 10:18:30 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> 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.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC

Can you point me to a web page owned and updated by Amazon that clearly states that you AP are never going to get anything
in return if anyone downloads this "book"? The web page has to be very specific about this. It cannot be you claiming this. It has
to be a public page owned by Amazon and visible to everyone that states you are getting absolutely nothing ever if anyone
downloads this book. I've done a little searching and I have not been able to find anything from Amazon that clearly states this.

Thank you

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 1:20:23 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 10:18:30 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 3rd published book
> >
> > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > 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.
> >
> > Length: 21 pages
> >
> > File Size: 1620 KB
> > Print Length: 21 pages
> > Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > Language: English
> > ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Can you point me to a web page owned and updated by Amazon that clearly states that you AP are never going to get anything
> in return if anyone downloads this "book"? The web page has to be very specific about this. It cannot be you claiming this. It has
> to be a public page owned by Amazon and visible to everyone that states you are getting absolutely nothing ever if anyone
> downloads this book. I've done a little searching and I have not been able to find anything from Amazon that clearly states this.
>
> Thank you

BWR foaming at the mouth in hatred spit out into sci.math, wanting to know how Amazon's Kindle works.

Well, how it works is that you can buy anyone of my 150 published science books-- published in 2 years time, and now working to publish AP's 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College.

If you buy any of those 150 books, I get about 70% (forgotten the figure, know it is more than 50%) of the sales price.

But if you read the book for free on Amazon's Kindle, I too will get a few pennies for you reading the book on a Kindle, all part of the monthly Kindle fee you pay. So if you read say one of my TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, that costs $9.99 on your monthly Kindle subscription, I get about 2 cents from you reading that book.

Just yesterday there were 111 people who read one of my biology books, and want that means is I will likely get 111 x 2 cents = 2.22.

So, BWR, I see no point in you reading any of my books, for all you ever want is to hiss, spit and throw turd grenades.

AP, der Konig der Wissenshaft and the Oceans beyond

BWR foaming at the mouth in hatred spit out into sci.math, wanting to know how Amazon's Kindle works.

Well, how it works is that you can buy anyone of my 150 published science books-- published in 2 years time, by the way, probably a new world's record in science book publishing, far outstripping Asimov in productivity, and now working to publish AP's 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College.

If you buy any of those 150 books, I get about 70% (forgotten the exact figure, know it is more than 50%) of the sales price. So if you buy say a 9.99 book of mine, means I get about $7.

But if you read the book for free on Amazon's Kindle, I too will get a few pennies for you reading the book on a Kindle, all part of the monthly Kindle fee you pay, think it is about $30 a month?? (not sure exactly). So if you read say one of my TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, that costs new for you to keep is $9.99. But if you read it for free on your monthly Kindle subscription, I get about 2 cents from you reading that book for free, because of the monthly subscription you pay Kindle.

Just yesterday there were 111 people who read one of my biology books, and what that means is I will likely get 111 x 2 cents = 2.22. Or it could be as low as 1 cent, for 1.11.

So, BWR, I see no point in you reading any of my books, whether for free and providing me with a few pennies, or even if you buy a book outright of mine, for all you ever want is to hiss, spit and throw turd grenades.

All those who buy a book outright from me, have the benefit of keeping up with my constant revisions. For instance I am just about to expand the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem to be double the number of pages.

And I suspect that libraries are buying most of my books so as to let the general public read AP books. I think libraries are AP's prime customers. And soon, in the near future, college classroom courses and High School science classes will use AP books as their prime book of teaching science.

That is why I am spending so much time on my 151st book, one of my greatest science books, for it sets the stage of physics education for the next solid 60 years.

AP, der Konig der Wissenshaft and the Oceans beyond

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 1:21:52 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So, BWR, I see no point in you reading any of my books, whether for free and providing me with a few pennies, or even if you buy a book outright of mine...

I sincerely thank you for making that clear, even though it wasn't Amazon documented as I specifically requested.

Unfortunately I simply cannot pay even a few pennies to a mentally ill crank
so I will not be able to read any of your books.

> And I suspect that libraries are buying most of my books so as to let the general public read AP books. I think libraries are AP's prime customers.

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE actually prove this. That should be simple enough.
Get the heads of a few dozen real actual public libraries to write letters
stating that they have purchased some of your many books.
That should be easy to do if they are the majority of your buyers.
Even finding long lists of your books in the online catalogs of multiple
real actual public libraries should be enough to prove this.

> And soon, in the near future, college classroom courses and High School science classes will use AP books as their prime book of teaching science.

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE actually prove this. That should be simple enough.
All you have to do is get a chair of ANY SINGLE real math department at any
real university to put in writing that they have decided to adopt one of your books.

Let's bet enough to really really hurt the loser.

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 1:21:52 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> And I suspect that libraries are buying most of my books so as to let the general public read AP books. I think libraries are AP's prime customers.

I just searched the online library catalogs for the eight largest cities in the country

new york city public library catalog
los angeles public library catalog
chicago public library catalog
houston public library catalog
phoenix public library catalog
philadelphia public library catalog
san antonio public library catalog
san diego public library catalog

And that turned up exactly ZERO results for Archimedes Plutonium.

If all those library catalogs turn up ZERO results for your name
then I think it is looking pretty questionable that most of your
buyers are libraries.

🪰 of Math and 🦟 of Physics Archimedes "Drag Queen of Science"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> And I suspect that libraries are buying most of my books so as to let the general public read AP books. I think libraries are AP's prime customers. And soon, in the near future, college classroom courses and High School science classes will use AP books as their prime book of teaching science.
>
WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS: Archimedes Plutonium is
offering to teach your children his broken physics and math. BEWARE! He
will corrupt the minds of your children! Mr. Plutonium is not content to
be a failure of math and physics all by himself. He wants everyone else
to fail as well! He teaches bizarre false physics and math, such as atoms
contain the unstable muon, the ellipse isn't a conic section, that there
are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, that a sine wave isn't
sinusoidal but semicircles, cycloids or parabolas (depending on his
mood), plus many, many other instances of bad math and physics.

Plutonium has previously tried to corrupt our youth by posting his books
on Usenet. That has failed until now, perhaps in part due to the fact
Usenet is an old, dying medium few modern students even know of, much
less use. However, Mr. Plutonium has somehow duped Amazon into providing
his dangerous books for free on Kindle. This has greatly increased the
danger to our students!

One of his dangerous tricks is teach false Boolean logic such as 10 AND 2
= 12. His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a
false statement that nobody believes, such as 10 OR 2 = 12, say that it
is false (which it is), but then he'll try to replace it with another
similar false statement such as 10 AND 2 = 12, in order to really confuse
future computer scientists. Plutonium is taking advantage of the fact
that AND means different things in Boolean logic and elementary
arithmetic, as AND is an informal synonym for plus/addition. It is
important for future computer scientists to remember that in the bitwise
Boolean logic used by modern computers, 10 OR 2 = 10 and 10 AND 2 = 2. Of
course in pure Boolean logic the only possible values are true and false
(1 or 0), so in pure Boolean logic the statements "10 AND 2" and "10 OR
2" don't even make sense. Don't let evil Plutonium's bad logic confuse
you!

Additionally, Plutonium has started a Cult of Failure. He is trying to
convince students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god of
failure. This cult is anti-science and anti-mathematics. Its only goal is
to promote failure in math and science.

Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like this.
Perhaps he is envious of their potential success, which he never had
because he is a failure at math and science. Plutonium is not content to
be a failure at math and physics all by himself. He wants everyone to
fail as well. Some claim he is an agent of China, in order for them to
dominate the world economy. Maybe he is a minion of Kim Jong Un of North
Korea. Most likely he is an agent of Putin and Russia, because he has
previously attempted to summon Russian robots in 2017 "to create a new,
true mathematics" in an attempt to destroy mathematics. But the point is,
stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous books.
Especially now since they are available for free from otherwise
legitimate Amazon.
>
> AP, Drag Queen of Science and the Oceans beyond
>

2> Dan Christensen on failure Thomas Hales; never correcting ellipse is cylinder cut, not a conic, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus; yet victimizes the world with his nonsense of Kepler Packing.

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 6:18:22 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Drag Queen of Science"
> tarded:
On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 11:33:38 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 11:54:12 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>Stooge"
> blithered:

> On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 2:01:27 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of
> AP writes: Is Hales as feeble as you Dan Christensen who cannot tell apart distinct from nondistinct?
>
> Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.
>
> The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 2 OR 1 = 3 and his AND as subtraction.
>
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> > Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> > >>>
> > >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> What a monsterous fool you are
> > >>
> > >
> > > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
> >
> > And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> > be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
> >
>
>
>
> 3rd published book
>
4> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
5> 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.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
>
> #8-2, 11th published book
>
6> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
7> Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science..
> Preface:
8> 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.
>
9> 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". 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.
>
> Length: 137 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1307 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 137 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)
> And so, in 1993, I offered my KPP proof saying that we simply prove you cannot surround a single sphere in 13 kissing points, and 12 is the maximum kissing points. Actually I was amazed aghast that no-one before me in 1993 saw this logical outline of a proof, a proof that takes just a tiny bit of algebra to calculate no 13 kissing points is possible. And so in 1993, I would find out what is holding up this proof of mine.
>
> The objection was dimensions, that my proof does not take into account 4th and higher dimension.
>
> And so, I was floored as to the insane unreasoning that objection was. I mean, no-one has proven that 4th or higher dimension even exists, and here, professors are placing such a mindless constraint upon a truly valid proof of FLT, provided we think of infinity as borderless infinity which was the thoughts of 1993.
>
> So is there a Logic Fallacy with a name for the placing of constraints of a proof, by saying it must meet demands far beyond the logic of the conjecture. For example, why not say a Kepler Packing Problem proof must include a proof that spheres with mosquito bites is a more dense packing, as morons insisted in 1993, that 4th dimension be included. Yet 4th dimension is a illusion delusion.
>
> Later in 2009 when I nailed down what a Well Defined Infinity was-- a borderline, then the Kepler Packing Problem turned into a entirely new endeavor.
>
>
> #8-3, 24th published book
> World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.
>
> Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
> Length: 61 pages
> File Size: 1241 KB
> Print Length: 61 pages
> Publication Date: March 20, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07NMV8NQQ
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: Not Enabled 
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported 
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Il giorno venerdì 13 agosto 2021 alle 06:39:03 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium ha scritto:
> If not for Usenet, sci.math, there would be 200 con-art fake math proofs, instead of just Wiles and Hales b.s. con-art.

=> 5i * 100i = 500i^2 = 5m^2
1i *5i *100i = 500i^3 = 0.5m^3

Il problema è convincervi che esiste 0.5m^3 .
Per me è semplice perché so usare.. i dm...Cosi, potreste giurare che 5i *10i = 50i^2 ..come
0.1 * 0.5 * 1 = 0.5m^3 = 500i^3..Tanto : che sia un volume..Lo dimostra la Presenza di 10i.
Per..chi volesse capirlo: 1.neutro.. serve alla T.d.i. che opera come derivativa da m^2 e m^3.

///////////////////////////////////////|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|/|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|/| 1i *5i *10i = 50i^3 => per 1i^3 = 1000c^3 = 0.001m^3
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|/|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|/|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|/

Risulta evidente che l'area debba essere 50i^2. Immagina che il grafico
sia lungo : 100i....ed otterrai 500i^3....A Ciascuno il Suo -:)))

Saluti da Socratis T.n.p. => 7^3+12^3 = 19*(84 +5^2) =2'071m*3.

On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 6:49:27 AM UTC-5, Socratis T.n.p. wrote:
> Il giorno venerdì 13 agosto 2021 alle 06:39:03 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium ha scritto:
> > If not for Usenet, sci.math, there would be 200 con-art fake math proofs, instead of just Wiles and Hales b.s. con-art.
>
> => 5i * 100i = 500i^2 = 5m^2
> 1i *5i *100i = 500i^3 = 0.5m^3
>
> Il problema è convincervi che esiste 0.5m^3 .
> Per me è semplice perché so usare.. i dm...Cosi, potreste giurare che 5i *10i = 50i^2 ..come
> 0.1 * 0.5 * 1 = 0.5m^3 = 500i^3..Tanto : che sia un volume..Lo dimostra la Presenza di 10i.
> Per..chi volesse capirlo: 1.neutro.. serve alla T.d.i. che opera come derivativa da m^2 e m^3.
>
> ///////////////////////////////////////|
> |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|/|
> |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|/| 1i *5i *10i = 50i^3 => per 1i^3 = 1000c^3 = 0.001m^3
> |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|/|
> |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|/|
> |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|/
>
> Risulta evidente che l'area debba essere 50i^2. Immagina che il grafico
> sia lungo : 100i....ed otterrai 500i^3....A Ciascuno il Suo -:)))
>
> Saluti da Socratis T.n.p. => 7^3+12^3 = 19*(84 +5^2) =2'071m*3.

If not for Usenet, sci.math, Socratis con-art would be peddled in Rome as a Banksy, gobbled up in UK and glorified in the USA as a Jackson Pollock where graffiti meets math.

Neither Thomas Hales nor Kibo Parry M belong in math, for neither can admit slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse.
On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 9:00:26 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
Kibo Parry Moron has spammed stalked sci.math for 30 years now, time to throw the shithead permanently out of sci.math

Take this bullshit over to sci.logic, for you are a math failure-- Your AND connector is subtraction with 2 OR 1 = 3. You do not even know a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. You are a failure in geometry for your slant cut in cone is a ellipse when actually that is a oval. But worst of all-- you are so stupid in science you cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- 0.5MeV particle or the muon stuck inside a 840 MeV proton torus.

You do not deserve to post in sci.math with your failed ignorance of math.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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 14May2022. 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 the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 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 ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#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)

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 11:09:51 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> kibo-moroney- Volney on Dr.Hales🦟Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem) "Drag Queen of Science"
> > fails at math and science:
> Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same.
>
> Or is it because they are so dishonest of mathematics that they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval not ellipse, for you need a cylinder symmetry to have slant cut be ellipse.
> Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
>
> Univ. Pittsburgh, Dr. Patrick D.Gallagher (physics), Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau,Dr.Daniel Boyanovsky,Dr.Wolfgang J.. Choyke,Dr.Anthony H.Duncan,Dr.Steven A.Dytman,Dr. Eugene Engels,Dr.George G. Gatewood,Dr.Tao Han,Dr.Allen I.Janis,Dr.David Jasnow, Dr.Rainer Johnsen,Dr.Peter F.M.Koehler, Dr.Arthur Kosowsky,Dr.John Cooper, Dr.Alexander Deiters,Dr. Angela M Gronenborn,Dr.Sethe Horne,Dr. Sunil Saxena,Dr.Peter Wipf
>
>
> Jeffrey Rubard (pronounced rhubarb) wonders how on Earth the Univ Pittsburgh Thomas Hales can claim to prove Kepler Packing when he never defines "infinity" in his fake proof (see AP's true proof below). But furthermore, Dr..Hales is such a failure of math that to this very day, he believes a slant cut of right circular cone is a ellipse, when in truth it is a oval, and Mr. Rubard also is complaining of this, for even the High School kids in the Pittsburgh area can take a paper cone (roll up a paper) and place a coin inside and slant it and see that it is a OVAL, not an ellipse. But the worst failing of Dr. Hales, for which he should have his degree rescinded for wasting all the time of many in mathematics, is that Dr. Hales failed math by never giving a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a valid proof (See AP's below).

"Do you ever say anything smart?" (It's pronounced how it's spelled, etc.)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:21:57 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 11:09:51 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > kibo-moroney- Volney on Dr.Hales🦟Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem) "Drag Queen of Science"
> > > fails at math and science:
> > Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same.
> >
> > Or is it because they are so dishonest of mathematics that they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval not ellipse, for you need a cylinder symmetry to have slant cut be ellipse.
> > Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
> >
> > Univ. Pittsburgh, Dr. Patrick D.Gallagher (physics), Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau,Dr.Daniel Boyanovsky,Dr.Wolfgang J. Choyke,Dr.Anthony H.Duncan,Dr.Steven A.Dytman,Dr. Eugene Engels,Dr.George G. Gatewood,Dr.Tao Han,Dr.Allen I.Janis,Dr.David Jasnow, Dr.Rainer Johnsen,Dr.Peter F.M.Koehler, Dr.Arthur Kosowsky,Dr.John Cooper, Dr.Alexander Deiters,Dr. Angela M Gronenborn,Dr.Sethe Horne,Dr. Sunil Saxena,Dr.Peter Wipf
> >
> >
> > Jeffrey Rubard (pronounced rhubarb) wonders how on Earth the Univ Pittsburgh Thomas Hales can claim to prove Kepler Packing when he never defines "infinity" in his fake proof (see AP's true proof below). But furthermore, Dr.Hales is such a failure of math that to this very day, he believes a slant cut of right circular cone is a ellipse, when in truth it is a oval, and Mr. Rubard also is complaining of this, for even the High School kids in the Pittsburgh area can take a paper cone (roll up a paper) and place a coin inside and slant it and see that it is a OVAL, not an ellipse. But the worst failing of Dr. Hales, for which he should have his degree rescinded for wasting all the time of many in mathematics, is that Dr. Hales failed math by never giving a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a valid proof (See AP's below).
> "Do you ever say anything smart?" (It's pronounced how it's spelled, etc.)

"Message has been deleted"

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:27:45 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:21:57 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 11:09:51 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > kibo-moroney- Volney on Dr.Hales🦟Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem) "Drag Queen of Science"
> > > > fails at math and science:
> > > Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same.
> > >
> > > Or is it because they are so dishonest of mathematics that they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval not ellipse, for you need a cylinder symmetry to have slant cut be ellipse.
> > > Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water.. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
> > >
> > > Univ. Pittsburgh, Dr. Patrick D.Gallagher (physics), Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau,Dr.Daniel Boyanovsky,Dr.Wolfgang J. Choyke,Dr.Anthony H.Duncan,Dr.Steven A.Dytman,Dr. Eugene Engels,Dr.George G. Gatewood,Dr.Tao Han,Dr.Allen I.Janis,Dr.David Jasnow, Dr.Rainer Johnsen,Dr.Peter F.M.Koehler, Dr.Arthur Kosowsky,Dr.John Cooper, Dr.Alexander Deiters,Dr. Angela M Gronenborn,Dr.Sethe Horne,Dr. Sunil Saxena,Dr.Peter Wipf
> > >
> > >
> > > Jeffrey Rubard (pronounced rhubarb) wonders how on Earth the Univ Pittsburgh Thomas Hales can claim to prove Kepler Packing when he never defines "infinity" in his fake proof (see AP's true proof below). But furthermore, Dr.Hales is such a failure of math that to this very day, he believes a slant cut of right circular cone is a ellipse, when in truth it is a oval, and Mr. Rubard also is complaining of this, for even the High School kids in the Pittsburgh area can take a paper cone (roll up a paper) and place a coin inside and slant it and see that it is a OVAL, not an ellipse. But the worst failing of Dr. Hales, for which he should have his degree rescinded for wasting all the time of many in mathematics, is that Dr. Hales failed math by never giving a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a valid proof (See AP's below).
> > "Do you ever say anything smart?" (It's pronounced how it's spelled, etc.)
> "Message has been deleted"

(Seems kind of sinister, really.)