When Dan Christensen was asked to do a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, geometrical proof, this was one of his replies--

On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 4:52:16 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> I don't know what he has against my namesake at UWO

And AP knew that you cannot get blood out of a turnip for Dan cannot even do 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.
>

So AP figured the pay for stalking on newsgroups by Dan Christensen and kibo Parry Moroney must be an enormous amount of pay to keep Kibo Parry stalking for 28 years nonstop. The pay must be so good for Kibo, that he is payed more than the college professors actually teaching math and physics.

On Monday, May 24, 2021 at 9:16:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>Stooge"
> tarded:
> So you stalk random professors etc. until they die?
>
> And how do you "tangle with" people who were never here?

And how and why does Kibo Parry Moroney tangle with sci.math and sci.physics when he flunked doing something as easy as math percentages. Did Kibo Parry Moroney flunk Rensselaer also??? Because, well, from the below Kibo Parry Moroney cannot even do the simple math of percentages. Yet he is here, every day stalking in sci.math, sci.physics. And teaching the 7 year long nonstop stalker Dan Christensen how to stalk for 28 years.

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
 > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>  Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
 > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

"Are you the same Archimedes Plutonium being mentioned on this old blog post?:

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/31/where-have-all-the-usenet-kooks-gone/

If so, then wow! You've basically wasted your life in a sense.

I suppose in another sense the stamina is quite impressive and you might get logged in some future internet historian's notes on this kind of behaviour (is that the goal, a kind of thin residual abstract immortality?).

John Gabriel can only fantasize about earning such a historical footnote at this point. He'd be better off trying to save up for a module or two at the Open University, but you can only help people that want to be helped I guess.

We can only hope all of you get well whilst there is still some lead in the pencil.

Kind Regards"

1-Dan identifies math con-artists of Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, John Stillwell who never did a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and too dumb in math to even know calculus demands a geometry proof of FTC.

Dan Christensen 7 year nonstop stalker warning on Linda Hasenfratz Western Ontario Univ and why UWO fails in math and physics-- no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and no-one intelligent enough to ask if real electron of atoms is muon not the 0.5MeV particle.

Dan Christensen asking Linda Hasenfratz Western Ontario Univ if students wasting time of their life with no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus at UWO, and no-one intelligent enough to ask if real electron of atoms is muon not 0.5MeV particle.

Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepar
Canadian students victimized by Dan Christensen and his party-- Linda Hasenfratz, Silvia Mittler, Els
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo

56,831 students wasting their life at Princeton for science/ Ross says// no-one at Princeton able to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus; no-one at Princeton intelligent enough to ask if real electron of atoms is muon not 0.5MeV.

2nd published book

True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.

Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.

Length: 1150 pages

Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

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)

AP's 175th book//Physicsopedia-- Listing of 125 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics.

Preface: I suppose, going forward, physics should always have a physicsopedia, where major parts of physics are held under question, under suspicion as to correctness. In past history we have called them as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet physics, can have no permanent mainstream. And theories passing as "standard model" is a travesty of science, of logical thinking and just a wide open door of physics corruption and tedious nonsense. The Standard Model of Old Physics is a example of "numerology and algebras turned from circus act into the physics mainstream".

Last revision was 15May2021
1) The picture of electricity and how it works was only truly begun in 2020 with the cover of this book showing electricity as closed loops, hoola hoops and how these loops flow in circuits taking on the shape of those circuits at the speed of light, where the flowing entity are magnetic monopoles-dipoles and photons. Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium.

2) The thoughts and images of electrons in Old Physics and Old Chemistry were horrendously error filled. The first place I see this huge error is in Feynman Lectures on Physics, not that I want to pick on Feynman for he is one of my heroes, but rather I chose Feynman because his Lectures have been translated into almost all languages and his books widely available and known. On page 14-10 of Volume 1, Feynman... And news out of Princeton Univ as of May 2021, where they are finding that the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopole comes in pairs, even though the Princeton researchers are too stupid yet to know that the 0.5MeV particle is not the atom's electron.

3) Old Physics never had a Primal axiom of Physics-- All is atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Old Physics wasted too much time on General Relativity (a fake theory) in the 20th century and too little time on electricity and magnetism.

4) New Physics starts with electricity and magnetism. Old Physics always started with idealizations such as linear momentum, and a force of gravity that had no relation to electricity and magnetism. Idealization physics is more imagination than about the truth of the world.

5) New Physics has the correct particles of physics where the proton is 840MeV, the real electron is the muon of 105MeV and is stuck inside the proton torus thrusting through the proton and producing electricity in the Faraday law. The 0.5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.

6) The true cosmology theory of science is the Atom Totality theory which began to replace the Big Bang theory starting 1990.

7) Big Bang theory is a joke, never a reality. And a outright contradiction of the Atomic theory, that all matter is composed of atoms. For all matter can be interchanged with "all things". If all things are atoms, then the universe itself , we must admit if we are logical thinkers, is "a thing" and thus the universe must be a atom also. Big Bang contradicts Logic. And if science is anything, it is logical.

8) When you find in the world, a Generalization of All Matter is made up of Atoms. You have to go with the Logic as the truth. If all Matter is atoms, then the Whole of the Universe is Matter, you must continue to the conclusion that the Whole is also an Atom. If you do not make that conclusion, you have to thence say-- All Matter except the Universe, and that is a silly end conclusion.

9) A second major physics fallacy is their screwing up of the 1897 Thomson particle they called the electron of 0.5MeV when it is the Dirac magnetic monopole that Thomson had found. It would not be until 1936 that the true electron of atoms is discovered and called the muon. What the 1897 screw-up mis-identity shows most of all, is that physicists throughout the 20th century never had a handle on what angular momentum means. If you understand angular momentum, you would realize that a proton at 938MeV and electron at 0.5MeV cannot support the existence of a hydrogen atom, or any atom for that sake.

10) Direct consequence of muon being the true electron, determines that the proton is 840MeV and the muon is stuck inside the proton doing a Faraday Law of producing new electricity by turning Space into electromagnetism. This is Dirac's new radioactivity and is the creation of new mass, matter in Space. This means all stars shine not from fusion, but from Faraday Law. Not only do stars grow more massive and bigger, but that all astro-bodies grow bigger. Meaning the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a gigantic hoax for the growing of the Solar System.

Dan says don't be a victim of Math Con Artist Andrew Wiles who has a fake FLT proof, and could not even spot the mistake in Euler's FLT// Worse, Dr. Wiles could never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and too feeble to realize

Google please put this thread into a Google Search of Dr. Andrew Wiles for he needs a Balanced Search page, not a top heavy in praise and no counterpoint. It would be like PBS Newshour to interview only Republicans and never Democrats.

On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:59:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

1-AP's 6th published book WORLD's FIRST VALID PROOF OF FERMAT's LAST THEOREM, and exposing the shoddy fake proof of Euler in exp3 and the con-artist fake Wiles offering.

AP is revisiting and revising his World's First Valid Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and giving a detailed account of the fake and con-artist offering by Andrew Wiles. Andrew Wiles cheated AP of the prizes awarded for the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. And this was a huge huge problem of science journalism publishing. Those that had access to publishing had a dreadful tendency of cheating scientists who had no direct access to publishing. So that Andrew Wiles achieved fame for FLT not on merits of truth, but only because he controlled as editor of a math journal out of Princeton Univ. All that AP had was Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics and other newsgroups. The old old way of doing science with publication became fraught with cheating and error and outright stealing of scientists working in the field without that access to publication.

And it was about 1993, when the Usenet and Internet started to Free the World, Give Liberty to scientists in the Field, who had no direct access to publishing and were prone to being stolen from and cheated of their work.

6th published book

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface:
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
Length: 156 pages

File Size: 1503 KB
Print Length: 156 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQKGW4M
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Euler was shoddy with his fake Fermat's Last Theorem, FLT, Proof for exponent 3, shoddy and failed to give a proof. But Andrew Wiles is a con-artist fraud, more than just shoddy on FLT.

Euler made a mistake in his fake proof, for he assumed that x,y,z all three even numbers cannot be a solution set in FLT. As Wikipedia entry quoted below says "One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd."

And it is true Euler provided a proof of the case of exponent 3 provided two of x,y,z are odd and the last, even. However, that is not a proof for the entire exponent 3. Euler was shoddy in his proof for to be a mathematics proof, it has to be complete. And what Euler missed was the case in which all three x,y,z are even numbers.

Now we can see this important missed case of Euler by just running through a few numbers.

So we have

2^3 = 8 and 4^3 = 64 and we have 8 + 8 =/= 64 but far from it.
6^3 = 216, and we have 64 + 64 =/= 216, but we are narrowing the gap.

So let us jump out to 100^3 and 98^3 and we have
98^3 = 941,192
100^3 = 1,000,000
And instantly you can see and recognize that 98^3 + 98^3 far far exceeds 1,000,000 and telling you, that Euler cannot Assume a FLT in exp 3 must only be two odds with one even. Euler shoddily miss the fact that he had to prove no three even numbers for x,y,z can hold true for FLT.

Now, steps into the picture Andrew Wiles around 1993 with his elliptic curves attempt at proving FLT. And Andrew is reliant, is dependent on Euler's exponent 3 proof for his elliptic curves to work. Trouble is, well, Andrew Wiles seems to have no logical brains in even spotting the fact that Euler had no proof of FLT for exponent 3. Because to prover FLT is true in exponent 3, meant, Euler had to prove not only two odds with one even cannot be a solution, but meant that all three evens could not be a solution.

Instead, Euler shoddily overlooked the fact that he had to prove x,y,z, all three evens could not solve FLT.

And Andrew Wiles, being so logically dumb in mathematics, could not even spot the shoddy fake proof of Euler.

--- Quoting Wikipedia on Euler's error ridden FLT, where he never proves in the case of x, y, z integers all three being even ---

n = 3

Leonhard Euler by Jakob Emanuel Handmann.
Fermat sent the letters in which he mentioned the case in which n = 3 in 1636, 1640 and 1657. Euler sent a letter in which he gave a proof of the case in which n = 3 to Goldbach on 4 August 1753. Euler had the complete and pure elementary proof in 1760. The case n = 3 was proven by Euler in 1770. Independent proofs were published by several other mathematicians, including Kausler, Legendre, Calzolari, Lamé, Tait, Günther, Gambioli, Krey, Rychlik, Stockhaus, Carmichael, van der Corput, Thue, and Duarte.

Chronological table of the proof of n = 3
date result/proof published/not published work name
1621 none published Latin version of Diophantus's Arithmetica Bachet
around 1630 only result not published a marginal note in Arithmetica Fermat
1636, 1640, 1657 only result published letters of n = 3 Fermat
1670 only result published a marginal note in Arithmetica Fermat's son Samuel published the Arithmetica with Fermat's note.
4 August 1753 only result published letter to Goldbach Euler
1760 proof not published complete and pure elemental proof Euler
1770 proof published incomplete but elegant proof in Elements of Algebra Euler

As Fermat did for the case n = 4, Euler used the technique of infinite descent. The proof assumes a solution (x, y, z) to the equation x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 0, where the three non-zero integers x, y, and z are pairwise coprime and not all positive. One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd. Without loss of generality, z may be assumed to be even.

Since x and y are both odd, they cannot be equal. If x = y, then 2x^3 = −z^3, which implies that x is even, a contradiction.

Since x and y are both odd, their sum and difference are both even numbers

2u = x + y
2v = x − y
where the non-zero integers u and v are coprime and have different parity (one is even, the other odd). Since x = u + v and y = u − v, it follows that

−z^3 = (u + v)^3 + (u − v)^3 = 2u(u^2 + 3v^2)
Since u and v have opposite parity, u^2 + 3v^2 is always an odd number. Therefore, since z is even, u is even and v is odd. Since u and v are coprime, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u^2 + 3v^2 is either 1 (case A) or 3 (case B).

Proof for Case A
In this case, the two factors of −z^3 are coprime. This implies that three does not divide u and that the two factors are cubes of two smaller numbers, r and s

2u = r^3
u^2 + 3v^2 = s^3
Since u^2 + 3v^2 is odd, so is s. A crucial lemma shows that if s is odd and if it satisfies an equation s^3 = u^2 + 3v^2, then it can be written in terms of two coprime integers e and f

s = e^2 + 3f^2
so that

u = e ( e^2 − 9f^2)
v = 3f ( e^2 − f^2)
Since u is even and v odd, then e is even and f is odd. Since

r3 = 2u = 2e (e − 3f)(e + 3f)
The factors 2e, (e–3f ), and (e+3f ) are coprime since 3 cannot divide e: If e were divisible by 3, then 3 would divide u, violating the designation of u and v as coprime. Since the three factors on the right-hand side are coprime, they must individually equal cubes of smaller integers

−2e = k^3
e − 3f = l^3
e + 3f = m^3
which yields a smaller solution k^3 + l^3 + m^3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible.

Proof for Case B
In this case, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u^2 + 3v^2 is 3. That implies that 3 divides u, and one may express u = 3w in terms of a smaller integer, w. Since u is divisible by 4, so is w; hence, w is also even. Since u and v are coprime, so are v and w. Therefore, neither 3 nor 4 divide v..