Kibo Parry M on the dishonest math failure UCLA Dr.Tao and Oxford U. Dr. Wiles, and why they run and hide
On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 9:25:11 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Village Idiot of Math"
> fails at math and science:
> > Terry, why cannot you even accept that slant cut of cone is OVAL, never the ellipse
>Terence Tao, EVER do something so incredibly
> stupid? He would only do something like that if he was trying to destroy

Yes, Kibo, why does Terry Tao UCLA dunce failure of math run and hide, for even Fred Jeffries understands there is a missing axis of symmetry in slant cut of cone but the mindless failure of math Dr. Tao runs and hides. Is Tao so stupid in math, Kibo Parry, that you resort calling him a pandemic shit mule???

> When did the King of Math *ever* run and hide? Run and hide from what?

While, Kibo, AP never ran and hid from any science, usually AP is leading the front line trenches in all sciences.

> Do genius mathematicians play hide and seek?

AP never did that but why does UCLA Dr Tao or Oxford U Dr. Wiles always run and hide when conic sections are brought up or even just AP's geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, so that con-artists, fakesters and dishonest corrupt jerks of academics like Tao and Wiles blight the scene.

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)

Re: 1-Kibo Parry Moroney, how do you clean your dick after it has been up Barry Shein's arsehole, or does it improve your stalking
By Richard Cranium May 10, 2020, 8:30:43 PM

Re: Kibo on I want to fuck her corpse AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41:27 AM

Kibo_I want to fuck her corpse-Andrea Ghez,Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:36:39 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"certifiably insane"
> > fails at math and science:
> > > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > Not again!
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
> >
> > wanting to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> > tarded:
>
> NSF Dr.Panchanathan, Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
>
> 1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
> 2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
> 3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says.. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
> 4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
>
> 5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.


> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
> Kibo Parry M the 30 year stalker joined by his friends Chris Thomasson and Dan Christensen
> Why Kibo, because Ruth Charney, Jill Pipher, Harvard's Dr.Hau cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???
>

>
> Kibo Parry M on CIA Kate Heinzelman,Harvard's Dr. Hau.
> Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> Why Kibo??? Because she refuses to finish her experiment and see all the light vanishes simultaneously, or is it because she can not admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???
>
> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:21:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Imp of Math"
> On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:06:24 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
> Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
> By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views
>
>
> Kibo on Kate Heinzelman
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
> Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
> >> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> > >
>
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Court Jester of Math"
>
> Kibo,is Ruth Charney of AMS the model in your book, for she cannot admit the slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse as proven by AP in 2016? I know it falls on deaf ears of Kibo with his 938 is 12% short of 945. And Ruth, would the AMS publish Kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945, because the AMS certainly will not publish AP's conic proof? Maybe that is all the AMS publishes-- fake math.
>
> Kibo on wanting to fuck her corpse/Kate Heinzelman, question, do you not think CIA is going overboard on stalking-- I mean 30 years for the insane Kibo Parry M??
>
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
> Kibo's "I want to fuck her corpse" rubbing off on Canada's Dan Christensen with his 20 year stalking of Univ Toronto's Rose M. Patten, Univ Western Ontario's Linda Hasenfratz, when Dan is a failure of math and logic with his 2 OR 1=3, and his ellipse
>
> Kibo Parry M the 30 year stalker joined by his friends Chris Thomasson and Dan Christensen
> Why Kibo, because Ruth Charney, Jill Pipher, Harvard's Dr.Hau cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???
>
> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"certifiably insane"
> > fails at math and science:
> > > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > Not again!
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
> >
> > wanting to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
>
> Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
> by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41:27 AM

Kibo Parry on UCLA Dr.Tao goonclod failure of logic. Why Kibo Parry (Moron Moroney Volney)?? Why? Is it because Dr. Tao is so dishonest in math he cannot admit the truth-- slant cut of cone is Oval, not a ellipse. Time that Kibo Parry moron shithead stop operating his *hate-network* of 30 years attacking and flush himself down the toilet, along with NSF Dr. Panchanathan if he funds the hate-network

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 1:27:42 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> of Math and of Physics "goonclod failure of logic"
> makes a complete fool of himself:
>"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"

Kibo Parry M on the dishonest math failure UCLA Dr.Tao and Oxford U. Dr. Wiles, and why they run and hide
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 9:25:11 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Village Idiot of Math"
> > fails at math and science:
> > > Terry, why cannot you even accept that slant cut of cone is OVAL, never the ellipse
> >Terence Tao, EVER do something so incredibly
> > stupid? He would only do something like that if he was trying to destroy
>
> Yes, Kibo, why does Terry Tao UCLA dunce failure of math run and hide, for even Fred Jeffries understands there is a missing axis of symmetry in slant cut of cone but the mindless failure of math Dr. Tao runs and hides. Is Tao so stupid in math, Kibo Parry, that you resort calling him a pandemic shit mule???
>
> > When did the King of Math *ever* run and hide? Run and hide from what?
>
> While, Kibo, AP never ran and hid from any science, usually AP is leading the front line trenches in all sciences.
>
> > Do genius mathematicians play hide and seek?
>
> AP never did that but why does UCLA Dr Tao or Oxford U Dr. Wiles always run and hide when conic sections are brought up or even just AP's geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, so that con-artists, fakesters and dishonest corrupt jerks of academics like Tao and Wiles blight the scene.
>
> 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 9/18/2023 2:52 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
Ant of Math and Phlea of Physics Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> embarrasses himself by writing:
>
> My 134th published book
>
> Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
>
Why do you still keep trying to brainwash little 5 year old kids?

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, water is H4O and not H2O, the ellipse
isn't a conic section, there are no negative numbers and 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, which 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!

Plutonium has been targeting children as young as 5. A new attempt to
corrupt the minds of young children is to teach that the alphabet has 12
letters, 6 vowels and 6 consonants. This sounds like a great way to
keep our children from reading!

Nobody knows why Plutonium wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like
this. Perhaps Plutonium 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 Plutonium is an agent of China, in
order for China to dominate the world economy. Maybe he is a minion of
Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Most likely, however, he is an agent of
Putin and Russia, since Plutonium has previously attempted to summon
Russian robots in 2017 "to create a new, true mathematics" in an attempt
to destroy mathematics.

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.

There is some evidence this Cult of Failure may be a suicide cult.
Plutonium has advocated that the "good guy" nations join into a
supernation and threaten to "flatten" the (nuclear armed) "bad guy"
nations who misbehave. The idea may to initiate an all-out nuclear
war when "bad guy" nations retaliate. Not simply is Plutonium or his
cult committing suicide but would take Planet Earth with them. As the
war in Ukraine continues, Plutonium keeps asking NATO to attack the
Russians, starting a nuclear WW3, which he feels is unavoidable. More
evidence of Plutonium's Cult of Failure being a suicide cult.

Plutonium is now encouraging resistance fighters fighting the regimes
in Russia and Iran to attack power lines in Tehran and Moscow by
carrying long vertical aluminum poles under them, presumably to short
them out, complete with a diagram. Obviously, this will not end well
for for the resistance fighter. The question is, did he do this because
he is Putin's stooge trying to kill off resistance fighters? Or is this
part of Plutonium's Suicide Cult of Failure, meaning this is merely a
suggestion how to commit suicide while failing to harm the regimes? Or
both?

But the point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you one of his
dangerous books. Especially now since they are available for free from
otherwise legitimate Amazon.