Neither Philip J.Hanlon nor Kibo Parry M belong in math, for neither can admit slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse.
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

AP> 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)

My 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Snail of Math and Green Banded Broodsac Nemotode of Physics Archimedes
"I ate your brain" Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
>
> Neither Philip J.Hanlon nor Kibo Parry M belong in math, for neither can admit slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse.
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> AP> 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.

Sorry, Arky, but failures of mathematics such as yourself don't get to
decide who gets to post where, because you're a nobody. Besides, it's
essentially impossible to banish anyone from Usenet, otherwise you would
have been banned some three decades ago.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> Sorry, Arky, but failures of mathematics such as yourself don't get to
> decide who gets to post where, because you're a nobody. Besides, it's
> essentially impossible to banish anyone from Usenet, otherwise you would
> have been banned some three decades ago.

you talk like a pregnant woman. Gorbachev was a traitor and a wanker. Deny
that.

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

> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict
>
>
> 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 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.