Why do the fans of Cantor always insult their antagonists to be crank? After all Cantor himself was crank. Who thinks to have overcome Infinity must be crank. That Cantor was crank is a historical fact. [G. Voeten in "! Cantor", sci.math (27 Apr 1999)]

It is clear that sooner or later there will be a question about why society should pay money to people who are engaged in things that do not have any practical applications. [V. Voevodsky in "Интервью Владимира Воеводского" (1 Jul 2012), translated by J. Baez]

The fallaciousness of Cantor's abstract procedure, on careful inspection, is immediately evident; [G. Walton: "Cantor's diagonal: an instance of the absurd fallaciousness of abstract procedure", sapere aude (19 Jul 2012)]

Naturalistically minded philosophers, which probably means the majority of philosophers at the moment, tend to be suspicious of mathematical Platonism, with its commitment to unbounded infinities of abstract objects outside of space, time, and the causal flux. [A. Weir: "Review of Mary Leng: 'Mathematics and reality'", Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 5,3 (2014) pp. 657-664]

I cannot consider the set of positive integers as given, for the concept of the actual infinite strikes me as insufficiently natural to consider it by itself. [N.N. Luzin, letter to K. Kuratowski, quoted in N.Y. Vilenkin: "In search of infinity", Birkhäuser, Boston (1995) p. 126]

Russell concludes that the main body of real numbers 'must be' of the 'lawless' variety. The author scrutinises these so-called 'lawless decimals' and concludes that they are mythical. [C. Ormell: "The continuum: Russell's moment of candour", Philosophy 81,4 (2006) Abstract]

Cantor has not proven that the diagonal constructive process results in a unique infinite decimal. The missing part of the proof is that he assumes the limit of this process produces a unique decimal. He does not prove this point, but states it. [D.G. Palmer in "Cantor and infinite size", sci.math (28 May 1999)]

Does the Bernays' number 67^257^729 actually belong to every set which contains 0 and is closed under the successor function? The conventional answer is yes but we have seen that there is a very large element of fantasy in conventional mathematics which one may accept if one finds it pleasant, but which one could equally sensibly (perhaps more sensibly) reject. [R. Parikh: "Existence and feasibility in arithmetic", Journal of Symbolic Logic 36 (1971) p. 507]

I have needed some time to understand what you want to express with this argument {{In the binary tree there cannot be more separated paths than generators of separated path, namely nodes.}} and how simple it is. If I am not completely in error I would say it is irrefutable. [G. Prandstätter in "Wikipedia: Paradoxien der Mengenlehre", de.sci.mathematik (31 Mar 2007)]

Regards, WM

more misleading "references" in philosophy, not math

On 12/29/2021 2:07 AM, WM wrote:
> Why do the fans of Cantor always insult their antagonists to be crank? After all Cantor himself was crank. Who thinks to have overcome Infinity must be crank. That Cantor was crank is a historical fact. [G. Voeten in "! Cantor", sci.math (27 Apr 1999)]

sci.math, fail.

>
> It is clear that sooner or later there will be a question about why society should pay money to people who are engaged in things that do not have any practical applications. [V. Voevodsky in "Интервью Владимира Воеводского" (1 Jul 2012), translated by J. Baez]

=> like Joe Biden
not relate to cantor, fail

>
> The fallaciousness of Cantor's abstract procedure, on careful inspection, is immediately evident; [G. Walton: "Cantor's diagonal: an instance of the absurd fallaciousness of abstract procedure", sapere aude (19 Jul 2012)]

sapere aude student run vat of conjecture, fail.

>
> Naturalistically minded philosophers, which probably means the majority of philosophers at the moment, tend to be suspicious of mathematical Platonism, with its commitment to unbounded infinities of abstract objects outside of space, time, and the causal flux. [A. Weir: "Review of Mary Leng: 'Mathematics and reality'", Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 5,3 (2014) pp. 657-664]

quote for the "Naturalistically minded philosophers". fail.
writer obviously does not understand Math, which uses are unbounded by reality.
not relate to cantor, fail.

>
> I cannot consider the set of positive integers as given, for the concept of the actual infinite strikes me as insufficiently natural to consider it by itself. [N.N. Luzin, letter to K. Kuratowski, quoted in N.Y. Vilenkin: "In search of infinity", Birkhäuser, Boston (1995) p. 126]

So Luzin suggested to Kuratowski, then Kuratowski whispered to Vilenkin, then Vilenkin mentioned to Birkhäuser.

>
> Russell concludes that the main body of real numbers 'must be' of the 'lawless' variety. The author scrutinises these so-called 'lawless decimals' and concludes that they are mythical. [C. Ormell: "The continuum: Russell's moment of candour", Philosophy 81,4 (2006) Abstract]

philosophy of report on someone else's opinion, fail.

>
> Cantor has not proven that the diagonal constructive process results in a unique infinite decimal. The missing part of the proof is that he assumes the limit of this process produces a unique decimal. He does not prove this point, but states it. [D.G. Palmer in "Cantor and infinite size", sci.math (28 May 1999)]

Palmer is obviously wrong, as all rationals produce repeating decimal expansions, fail.

>
> Does the Bernays' number 67^257^729 actually belong to every set which contains 0 and is closed under the successor function? The conventional answer is yes but we have seen that there is a very large element of fantasy in conventional mathematics which one may accept if one finds it pleasant, but which one could equally sensibly (perhaps more sensibly) reject. [R. Parikh: "Existence and feasibility in arithmetic", Journal of Symbolic Logic 36 (1971) p. 507]

silly opinion, based on negitive conjecture, fail.
not relate to cantor, fail.

>
> I have needed some time to understand what you want to express with this argument {{In the binary tree there cannot be more separated paths than generators of separated path, namely nodes.}} and how simple it is. If I am not completely in error I would say it is irrefutable. [G. Prandstätter in "Wikipedia: Paradoxien der Mengenlehre", de.sci.mathematik (31 Mar 2007)]

another newsgroup quote, fail.
and on binary trees, not relate to cantor, fail.

>
> Regards, WM
>
>

On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 8:39:06 AM UTC-8, Serg io wrote:
> more misleading "references" in philosophy, not math
> On 12/29/2021 2:07 AM, WM wrote:
> > Why do the fans of Cantor always insult their antagonists to be crank? After all Cantor himself was crank. Who thinks to have overcome Infinity must be crank. That Cantor was crank is a historical fact. [G. Voeten in "! Cantor", sci.math (27 Apr 1999)]
> sci.math, fail.
> >
> > It is clear that sooner or later there will be a question about why society should pay money to people who are engaged in things that do not have any practical applications. [V. Voevodsky in "Интервью Владимира Воеводского" (1 Jul 2012), translated by J. Baez]
> => like Joe Biden
> not relate to cantor, fail
> >
> > The fallaciousness of Cantor's abstract procedure, on careful inspection, is immediately evident; [G. Walton: "Cantor's diagonal: an instance of the absurd fallaciousness of abstract procedure", sapere aude (19 Jul 2012)]
> sapere aude student run vat of conjecture, fail.
> >
> > Naturalistically minded philosophers, which probably means the majority of philosophers at the moment, tend to be suspicious of mathematical Platonism, with its commitment to unbounded infinities of abstract objects outside of space, time, and the causal flux. [A. Weir: "Review of Mary Leng: 'Mathematics and reality'", Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 5,3 (2014) pp. 657-664]
> quote for the "Naturalistically minded philosophers". fail.
> writer obviously does not understand Math, which uses are unbounded by reality.
> not relate to cantor, fail.
> >
> > I cannot consider the set of positive integers as given, for the concept of the actual infinite strikes me as insufficiently natural to consider it by itself. [N.N. Luzin, letter to K. Kuratowski, quoted in N.Y. Vilenkin: "In search of infinity", Birkhäuser, Boston (1995) p. 126]
> So Luzin suggested to Kuratowski, then Kuratowski whispered to Vilenkin, then Vilenkin mentioned to Birkhäuser.
> >
> > Russell concludes that the main body of real numbers 'must be' of the 'lawless' variety. The author scrutinises these so-called 'lawless decimals' and concludes that they are mythical. [C. Ormell: "The continuum: Russell's moment of candour", Philosophy 81,4 (2006) Abstract]
> philosophy of report on someone else's opinion, fail.
> >
> > Cantor has not proven that the diagonal constructive process results in a unique infinite decimal. The missing part of the proof is that he assumes the limit of this process produces a unique decimal. He does not prove this point, but states it. [D.G. Palmer in "Cantor and infinite size", sci.math (28 May 1999)]
> Palmer is obviously wrong, as all rationals produce repeating decimal expansions, fail.
> >
> > Does the Bernays' number 67^257^729 actually belong to every set which contains 0 and is closed under the successor function? The conventional answer is yes but we have seen that there is a very large element of fantasy in conventional mathematics which one may accept if one finds it pleasant, but which one could equally sensibly (perhaps more sensibly) reject. [R. Parikh: "Existence and feasibility in arithmetic", Journal of Symbolic Logic 36 (1971) p. 507]
> silly opinion, based on negitive conjecture, fail.
> not relate to cantor, fail.
> >
> > I have needed some time to understand what you want to express with this argument {{In the binary tree there cannot be more separated paths than generators of separated path, namely nodes.}} and how simple it is. If I am not completely in error I would say it is irrefutable. [G. Prandstätter in "Wikipedia: Paradoxien der Mengenlehre", de.sci.mathematik (31 Mar 2007)]
> another newsgroup quote, fail.
> and on binary trees, not relate to cantor, fail.
>
> >
> > Regards, WM
> >
> >

Cantor's one of those examples like Galois, or, for example, Ehrenfest,
tragic in a sense that "Cantor was irascible and sometimes indiscerning
in advancing the powerset and nested intervals, ..., uncountability results",
though Cantor's in the thick of it while Galois was "I noted some features of
algebra and it's great and here are Galois fields, hi yes this is Bourbaki"..
Ehrenfest on the other hand was a physicist for which there is the disc
and wheel in a sense, up to Sagnac who is instead not tragic and mundane,
sad stories to go along with all the triumphs.

Let's keep in mind that after biographies are much of what results the
study of the guy.

We know now that Cantor's efforts were in a sense futile, his later efforts,
to prove CH, though it might be agreed there's arrived at theories with at
least models of GCH according to ordinals, for that matter least models of
"not CH" according to ordinals, here as that a "hypothesis" or conjecture,
the Continuum Hypothesis here for example has at least three definitions
of continuity, where, Cantor had basically abandoned the geometric priority,
for an algebraic in the combinatoric priority.

Then how nuts he was I don't know and it's not clear what all injuries or
all they were, but his family stayed with him - Cantor though has that as
a footnote about his later years while most of the nuts in the early years
would have been more along the lines of "with this doctorate in mathematics
here's happenstance definitions what results a set-theoretic framework for
regular cardinals and according to the powerset and other results the
countabilities' un-countabilities", it's a large enough concept that it results,
that, it's in a sense both from and past intuition.

[I.e. he gave up domain principle for priority of uncountability.]

Then there was Russell and it was arrived at "Cantor's, instead of Frege's,
perhaps as it's easier to start from the trans-finite and arrive at the
ordinary then vice-versa as Frege completes in the ordinary", that what
resulted from the Mengenlehre or Cantor's set theory was "ah, yes,
here with regularity the axiom and infinity this careful axiom and
powerset and the logical axioms, and, that's it, and well-ordering",
set theory then as "Zermelo-Fraenkel" set theory, for Ernst Zermelo
and A.A. Fraenkel, with "Least Upper Bound" and "measure 1.0" it
results what's been the foundation in mathematics, this century.

To help solve this is Finlayson slate after sweep principle,
the specific counterexample and form for each uncountability
result of the existence of a well-ordering projection, or sweep
as by a compact ordinal, arbitrarily large as of the real-valued.

Then there's the other one for paradox on logic. (The other slate.)

On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 3:07:43 AM UTC-5, WM wrote:
> Why do the fans of Cantor always insult their antagonists to be crank?

You yourself refuse to define even basic terminology like a "finite set," and cannot even prove that 1=/=2 in your goofy little system. All rather crankish, I'm afraid. You are making a complete fool of yourself here, Mucke. As always.

Dan

onsdag 29 december 2021 kl. 09:07:43 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> Why do the fans of Cantor always insult their antagonists to be crank? After all Cantor himself was crank. Who thinks to have overcome Infinity must be crank. That Cantor was crank is a historical fact. [G. Voeten in "! Cantor", sci.math (27 Apr 1999)]
>
> It is clear that sooner or later there will be a question about why society should pay money to people who are engaged in things that do not have any practical applications. [V. Voevodsky in "Интервью Владимира Воеводского" (1 Jul 2012), translated by J. Baez]
>
> The fallaciousness of Cantor's abstract procedure, on careful inspection, is immediately evident; [G. Walton: "Cantor's diagonal: an instance of the absurd fallaciousness of abstract procedure", sapere aude (19 Jul 2012)]
>
> Naturalistically minded philosophers, which probably means the majority of philosophers at the moment, tend to be suspicious of mathematical Platonism, with its commitment to unbounded infinities of abstract objects outside of space, time, and the causal flux. [A. Weir: "Review of Mary Leng: 'Mathematics and reality'", Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 5,3 (2014) pp. 657-664]
>
> I cannot consider the set of positive integers as given, for the concept of the actual infinite strikes me as insufficiently natural to consider it by itself. [N.N. Luzin, letter to K. Kuratowski, quoted in N.Y. Vilenkin: "In search of infinity", Birkhäuser, Boston (1995) p. 126]
>
> Russell concludes that the main body of real numbers 'must be' of the 'lawless' variety. The author scrutinises these so-called 'lawless decimals' and concludes that they are mythical. [C. Ormell: "The continuum: Russell's moment of candour", Philosophy 81,4 (2006) Abstract]
>
> Cantor has not proven that the diagonal constructive process results in a unique infinite decimal. The missing part of the proof is that he assumes the limit of this process produces a unique decimal. He does not prove this point, but states it. [D.G. Palmer in "Cantor and infinite size", sci.math (28 May 1999)]
>
> Does the Bernays' number 67^257^729 actually belong to every set which contains 0 and is closed under the successor function? The conventional answer is yes but we have seen that there is a very large element of fantasy in conventional mathematics which one may accept if one finds it pleasant, but which one could equally sensibly (perhaps more sensibly) reject. [R. Parikh: "Existence and feasibility in arithmetic", Journal of Symbolic Logic 36 (1971) p. 507]
>
> I have needed some time to understand what you want to express with this argument {{In the binary tree there cannot be more separated paths than generators of separated path, namely nodes.}} and how simple it is. If I am not completely in error I would say it is irrefutable. [G. Prandstätter in "Wikipedia: Paradoxien der Mengenlehre", de.sci.mathematik (31 Mar 2007)]
>
> Regards, WM

Wanna know who is a crank? You are mate!

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus. Because the Power Rule is merely add or subtract 1 from exponent so we can teach calculus in High School.

Wolfgang Mueckenheim was a nervous breakdown wreck after calculus class, in fact lead directly to his hip hop humping insanity of Cantor reproof and his idiotic WM dark numbers bs. WM could have been a normal ordinary person instead of the worthless spamming crank his low life ended up as being if his Germany calculus classes as a young man had used TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS. When calculus is taught with thousands of different functions all having their own special rules, turns a young sapling like WM into a spamming imbecile.

Old Math makes and keeps Calculus as classroom torture chambers with their 1,000s of different functions yet the polynomial is the only valid function of math, and makes it super super easy to learn calculus

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus.

If you come to me with a pathetic non polynomial especially that ugly trig functions, I have you go home and convert your nonsense to a polynomial. The Lagrange interpolation converts stupid nonfunctions like trig, into valid functions of polynomials.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering-backs of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them. Psychology teaches us that when a kook goes through a torture chamber and comes out of it as a math professor-- they want to be vindictive and sado masochists and love to torture others and put them through the same torture chamber that they went through. AP says-- stop this cycle of torture and teach TRUE CORRECT MATH.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them.

Old Math calculus textbooks like Stewart are more than 1,000 pages long and they need that because they have a mindless thousand different functions and no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP's calculus is less than 300 pages, because we have a valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which demands the only valid function of math be a polynomial function. We can teach calculus in Junior High School for the calculus is reduced to adding or subtracting 1 from the exponent. The only hard part of calculus in New Math is to convert the boneheaded function into a polynomial that was brought to the table by the boneheaded math professor who thinks that a function does not need to be a polynomial.

AP calculus transforms the calculus classroom. It is no longer vomiting during exams. No longer a torture chamber for our students of youth, and no longer a nightmare nor nervous breakdown for our youthful students, who, all they ever wanted was the truth of mathematics.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.

AP has managed to make sci.math a battlefield where AP is alone on one side and every other poster is either a direct attack on AP or an indirect attack on AP such as Markus, Gabriel, Thomasson, WM trying to push AP off the front page. While over in sci.physics, the maintenance team at sci.physics still have control of the helm. But sci.math is without a helmsman and rudderless. Quite a spectacle, and time for a change of personnel ISP of sci.math to be at least like sci.physics. I do not know how much of this if any, is the fault of NSF Dr.Panchanathan, Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, Tim Skirvin, Gilbert Strang...

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. This is why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:

From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B

______
| |
| |
| |
---------

To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|

The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.

Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.

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)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)

#5-2, My 45th published book.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon Kindle edition)

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science..

Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

💩 for 🧠s Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> humiliates 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 keep trying to brainwash poor 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.