Google, thanks, you have Balanced Search hits on Dan Christensen and Kibo Parry, but now, can you balance the search hits on Ross; Rose M. Patten, Linda Hasenfratz, Dr Hau Harvard, Dr. Lisa Randall, Dr. Jill Pipher, Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg
15 views
Subscribe

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:12 PM (20 minutes ago)



to
Thanks Google, you have Balanced search hits on "Dan Christensen math" where in the 7th hit on first page exposes Dan as a 7 year nonstop stalker with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. And thanks for Kibo Parry balanced search hit, although his first three hits on page 1 says Kibo is God, that his 6th hit exposes him for what he is really worth-- a 28 year nonstop demonizing stalker of no value to either sci.math or sci.physics.

But, please, Google make the search hits of Rose M. Patten, Linda Hasenfratz, Lawrence Bacow, Dominic Barton, James Leech, fair and balanced with these hits showing up as one of the first 10 hits:

Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F.. West, Michael B. Walker
by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM

Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
Filthy stalker of Kibo Parry Moroney, Barry Shein, Nicholas Thompson (Wired cover). The drug
11:57 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo

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

Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM

Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
#2-1, 137th published book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series,
May 10, 2021
by Professor Wordsmith

Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
#2-1, 137th published book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series,
May 10, 2021
by
Michael Moroney

Because that gives those chancellors and presidents of those schools Attention to the fact that their Logic departments are teaching cesspool logic of the mistaken Boole with his AND truth table of TFFF when it really is TTTF and where your schools teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Gives those chancellors the opportunity to fix their math departments so they can teach a valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

And Google Search, please balance the search hits of Dr Hau Harvard, Dr. Lisa Randall, Dr. Jill Pipher, Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg, so that a first page entry shows them as not intelligent enough in physics to ask the question is the real electron of atoms the muon and the 0.5MeV particle Dirac's magnetic monopole.

Google, as it stands, Dr. Hau is so dumb in physics she cannot be bothered to turn the light switch off in BEC experiment of slow light and prove AP is correct-- light waves are closed loop circuits. So instead of 1 million search hits all glowing about Dr. Hau, when she should have a hit on first page saying "Why is Dr. Hau too stubborn to complete her experiment?"

Google, can you please BALANCE your search engine hits, where you pack Terence Tao's hits with "genius" in every other paragraph but you demonize AP. Do like Respected Journalism-- balanced news hits.

Google, please change your search hits to reflect Balanced News. It is unacceptable that you have Terence Tao search in Google with the first 100,000 hits of articles that mention Tao as -- genius-- in the first paragraph. Unacceptable. For the fact that Terence Tao could never do a Geometry Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, could never do a valid proof of FTC, Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, needs to be in the first 10 Google hits of Terence Tao. The fact that Terence Tao is too stupid to do FTC a valid proof, along with the fact that Terence Tao still believes in Boole Logic, errors and all, for he has to use Logic to even consider a math proof, and his AND connective is terribly wrong. Boole's AND truth table of TFFF, when the crazy Boole messed up and the AND table is really TTTF, because given a string of statements, if just one statement is true, the entire string is true. But Terence Tao is deaf dumb and silent as to proper reasoning, proper logic and too stupid to correct the massive Boole mistakes. For the Boole error ends up as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as a form of subtraction.

Google searches should be BALANCED just like the PBS and all respected news journalism. The fact that Terence Tao as mathematician cannot be bothered to verify that you slip a Kerr or Mason lid inside a homebuilt paper cone and see for yourself the slant cut in a single cone is never a ellipse, always a oval, needs to be in Terence Tao's first 10 Google hits.

The same goes for Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell. Google, please stop this Unbalanced and huge Bias in your Search Engines where you demonize AP and stack his hits by goofballs like Scott Contini, Kibo Parry, Sam Maksimovich, Pezevenk, stack AP's hits by attack dogs rather than Balanced Reporting.

The four lunatics of reddit/math, Terry Tao, Scott Contini, Sam Maksimovich, none can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, too stupid to even know what that is.

Now is Mr. Pezevenk the fourth lunatic, missing out on his fair share of lunaticing, for I do remember now that there were 4 Stooges although the TV show said 3 Stooges.

ScottContini reddit/math
King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium meets lunatics Terry Tao in 1994 and Scott Contini 2021, with tap dancing Mr. Pezevenk talking about Riemann hypothesis as a lavatory.
Reddit Sam Maksimovich, 3 weeks ago from 22May,2021

Question Scott and Sam, why has Terry Tao the failure of mathematics never able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP has done one in 2015, and is Reddit 6 years behind the times, behind in science. Do they call you the 3 Lunatics of Reddit??

The three lunatics of reddit/math, Terry Tao, Scott Contini, Sam Maksimovich, none can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, too stupid to even know what that is.

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)

"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"

Is this Ross Finlayson of Columbia University with his endless ad hominem, never any math in sci.math???

So, which Ross is this, who is trying to deceive readers of sci.math or sci..physics that AP posts are not visible to the general world wide audience. AP posts may not be visible at Columbia University in NY, for I am guess this Ross is the tin badge self appointed censor and has filtered out AP Usenet posts at Columbia University and then had his fellow denizons post to dot orgs saying AP is gone, when in fact AP has steadily posted almost every day of every year starting August 1993. So why is Ross trying to pull the wool over the eyes of all?

Looking in my filter file I see these Ross's.

AP's filter file of Ross:

Ross A. Finlayson

Nov 22, 2020, 2:26:48 PM






to


This was one of AP's better posts for a while.

> rossb@thegrid.net (Ross Brunetti)

> Brian J. Ross (bross@cosc.brocku.ca)

>

> Received: by 10.204.136.212 with SMTP id s20mr407462bkt.5.1327618250335;
Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:50:50 -0800 (PST)
Path: cj8ni142635bkb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.tornevall.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Rusty Tavek, Grand Wizard of AUK" <aukvotewrang...@safe-mail.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Final Days of AUK! (was: Kook SpokeOrc withdraws their feeble Indictment! No case to answer! B^])
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:50:44 -0500
Organization: AUK Vote Wrangler
Lines: 378
Message-ID: <aukvotewrangler-69558F.17504426012012@nntp.aioe.org>
References: <qn9jh752ja6mgduvbggquubba50o8ppv0b@4ax.com> <e2eb16e0-dec0-4232-92eb-0844441efe55@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com> <1f6lh7tr88g854se5903ndrcvllui96di9@4ax.com> <oHISq.2169$%E2.868@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com> <3e181a2c-9022-4317-bc60-5585e5857876@lr19g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> <aukvotewrangler-105C5B.23032521012012@nntp.aioe.org> <1ocnh7tdcgdgjl30deuhq70icd4chacm0n@4ax.com> <Po-dnZ3hyvaHKIbSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <GV4Tq.2253$%E2.797@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com> <ca62795d-68e0-467e-b599-f3b3417d0246@pt5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> <7McTq.2282$%E2.1924@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com> <61ff209c-4446-481f-bdb5-af7c0b193560@v6g2000pba.googlegroups.com> <aukvotewrangler-712E1D.15545025012012@nntp.aioe.org> <slrnji0tuq.7t4.pjr@peterjross.me.uk> <aukvotewrangler-5B180A.17110925012012@nntp.aioe.org> <slrnji392c.acb.pjr@peterjross.me.uk> <aukvotewrangler-0BC769.15151126012012@nntp.aioe.org> <slrnji3gjc.acb.pjr@peterjross.me.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: qa+sjhiseLcdSo3y60h6pg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (PPC Mac OS X)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

>

> rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au (Ross Macfarlane) 13 May 2004 23:01:52 -0700

>

> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:33:01 +0000 (UTC)

>

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
Nov 22, 2020, 2:26:48 PM
to sci.math
>This was one of AP's better posts for a while.

And what I can remember of this Ross Finlayson is it is a computer program probably housed at Columbia Univ spewing out airhead spam in sci.math from 1993 to even up to 2020. So is the same Ross as the below bully censor? And why is he wanting to paint a false picture that AP posts to Usenet have vanished? Perhaps Ross at Columbia Univ has filter blocked AP, but that does not mean AP posts have vanished throughout Usenet, just the server at Columbia University has filter blocked AP, but all of AP's post are visible on Google Newsgroups.

Maybe that is the problem, everyone in old Usenet is upset over Google taking the newsgroups on its own platform.

And, if any of the above is true in part or whole, then, I will try to get a Ross Finlayson Google Newsgroup post, such as this post, landing in the first 10 hits of a Google search of Ross Finlayson, so as to inform a world wide audience that Ross does no math in sci.math, but only ad hominem, ad hominem and more throwing of darts ad hominem at people who actually do math in sci.math.

Hey Ross, you idiot-- show us your proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, show us you can do math in sci.math, rather than bark and piss all over the floor. That would make a nice Reddit title Ross barks and pisses on the floor of sci.math but never any math.

On Monday, May 24, 2021 at 2:39:42 PM UTC-5, ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:
> "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"

Ross, ending with kind regards but the rest of the text is ad hominem tripe..

Is the above Ross Finlayson and does he have a Google search hits, for his bully censorship of sci.math in Usenet should be noted.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

On Monday, May 24, 2021 at 3:40:45 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > We can only hope all of you get well whilst there is still some lead in the pencil.
> >
> > Kind Regards"
> Ross, ending with kind regards but the rest of the text is ad hominem tripe.
>
> Is the above Ross Finlayson and does he have a Google search hits, for his bully censorship of sci.math in Usenet should be noted.
>
> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics

Ah, heh, AP. Allow me to tread softly here as more-than-less an admirer,
of some various concepts like one big dot, if not of sentiment analysis
of usually the poor variety.

AP, I prove the FTC the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with the IVT
the Intermediate Value Theorem, including with three replete models
of continuity (line, field, and signal reals), which is quite simple for
basically a fixed-point approach to line-drawing as fundamental and
for a fundamental placement of constant linear motion as for time.

No, in 1994 I was just learning about Mosaic (then Netscape) and WWW,
then though since some twenty or more years ago I've maintained a view of
continuity as line-drawing and outlined for foundations a way forward
with explanations / apologetics that eliminate paradoxes and result in
a more replete fundamental theory of real numbers.

Such usual sentiment poisoning is more-than-less a usual psycho's route
to the injury of others. But, AP has an outright persecution complex that
I'd hope not to provoke - like a snarling bum on the street you don't want
to have to beat down. (There are at least two kinds of people and their
sentiments are basically opposites.)

"You'll never hear it from heavyweights. You'll never hear negative things
from important people, you'll only hear productive things and constructive
things. There isn't anybody I can rap or will I rap at any time about anything.
I may disagree and I may have another opinion, but I respect the fact that
they have the right to that opinion. And, I haven't got the time to be negative -
that makes you old, and it makes you tired and sick."
-- Jerry Lewis on Dick Cavett the other day 50 years ago

So, this AP might be a Quixote while some giant AP emits algebraic geometry -
automated emotion emulation of the shallow sort is usually a disdain.

Anyways, though, AP, whoever believes your hypothesis would be relying on
its authority - which if found lacking might leave them bereft faith in their own
reason - which was undeserved. Such is among reasons why mathematical and
logical foundations are very interesting and compelling, and to provide
deterministic reasoning over a wavy unsure-meter. Congratulations on
being "King of Science, especially Physics".

Ross, though, enjoy your posts, and there are tens of thousands of mine here.
Which I defend and hold and are the sane over time, neatly durable and when
not actively hidden from search, the deluge. All neatly tucked away.

(I don't have any affiliation with Columbia.)

On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 1:47:33 AM UTC-5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, May 24, 2021 at 3:40:45 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > We can only hope all of you get well whilst there is still some lead in the pencil.
> > >
> > > Kind Regards"
> > Ross, ending with kind regards but the rest of the text is ad hominem tripe.
> >
> > Is the above Ross Finlayson and does he have a Google search hits, for his bully censorship of sci.math in Usenet should be noted.
> >
> > AP
> > King of Science, especially Physics

> Ah, heh, AP. Allow me to tread softly here as more-than-less an admirer,
> of some various concepts like one big dot, if not of sentiment analysis
> of usually the poor variety.

Are you always elliptical in every paragraph you write. Why not be normal and say-- sorry I posted under a ruse name of Ross @ gmx dot com.

>
> AP, I prove the FTC the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with the IVT
> the Intermediate Value Theorem, including with three replete models
> of continuity (line, field, and signal reals), which is quite simple for
> basically a fixed-point approach to line-drawing as fundamental and
> for a fundamental placement of constant linear motion as for time.
>

Review your fake proof, your invalid proof, for it rests upon a limit argument hornswaggle. It does not rest on IVT. All analysis proofs of FTC are invalid because none of them links up the derivative with the integral. In Old Math, their silly idea that the derivative was a tangent slope to a point of the graph curve, is never able to link up with the integral as area under the graph curve.

So, you, Ross, never had a valid proof of FTC, in fact, you were so mindless in math, you never realized calculus was geometry, so you needed a geometry proof of FTC. But do not be sad, for no-one in math knew this about calculus. The entire world of mathematicians were under a spell of dumbnification when it comes to FTC.

> No, in 1994 I was just learning about Mosaic (then Netscape) and WWW,
> then though since some twenty or more years ago I've maintained a view of
> continuity as line-drawing and outlined for foundations a way forward
> with explanations / apologetics that eliminate paradoxes and result in
> a more replete fundamental theory of real numbers.
>
> Such usual sentiment poisoning is more-than-less a usual psycho's route
> to the injury of others. But, AP has an outright persecution complex that
> I'd hope not to provoke - like a snarling bum on the street you don't want
> to have to beat down. (There are at least two kinds of people and their
> sentiments are basically opposites.)
>
> "You'll never hear it from heavyweights. You'll never hear negative things
> from important people, you'll only hear productive things and constructive
> things. There isn't anybody I can rap or will I rap at any time about anything.
> I may disagree and I may have another opinion, but I respect the fact that
> they have the right to that opinion. And, I haven't got the time to be negative -
> that makes you old, and it makes you tired and sick."
> -- Jerry Lewis on Dick Cavett the other day 50 years ago
>
>
> So, this AP might be a Quixote while some giant AP emits algebraic geometry -
> automated emotion emulation of the shallow sort is usually a disdain.
>
>
> Anyways, though, AP, whoever believes your hypothesis would be relying on
> its authority - which if found lacking might leave them bereft faith in their own
> reason - which was undeserved. Such is among reasons why mathematical and
> logical foundations are very interesting and compelling, and to provide
> deterministic reasoning over a wavy unsure-meter. Congratulations on
> being "King of Science, especially Physics".
>
>
> Ross, though, enjoy your posts, and there are tens of thousands of mine here.
> Which I defend and hold and are the sane over time, neatly durable and when
> not actively hidden from search, the deluge. All neatly tucked away.
>
>
> (I don't have any affiliation with Columbia.)

Well you should for maybe they can teach you how to be elliptical all the time and talk straight, talk narrow. Maybe psychology can wean you out of your affliction.

On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 2:09:50 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 1:47:33 AM UTC-5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Monday, May 24, 2021 at 3:40:45 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > We can only hope all of you get well whilst there is still some lead in the pencil.
> > > >
> > > > Kind Regards"
> > > Ross, ending with kind regards but the rest of the text is ad hominem tripe.
> > >
> > > Is the above Ross Finlayson and does he have a Google search hits, for his bully censorship of sci.math in Usenet should be noted.
> > >
> > > AP
> > > King of Science, especially Physics
>
>
> > Ah, heh, AP. Allow me to tread softly here as more-than-less an admirer,
> > of some various concepts like one big dot, if not of sentiment analysis
> > of usually the poor variety.
> Are you always elliptical in every paragraph you write. Why not be normal and say-- sorry I posted under a ruse name of Ross @ gmx dot com.
> >
> > AP, I prove the FTC the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with the IVT
> > the Intermediate Value Theorem, including with three replete models
> > of continuity (line, field, and signal reals), which is quite simple for
> > basically a fixed-point approach to line-drawing as fundamental and
> > for a fundamental placement of constant linear motion as for time.
> >
> Review your fake proof, your invalid proof, for it rests upon a limit argument hornswaggle. It does not rest on IVT. All analysis proofs of FTC are invalid because none of them links up the derivative with the integral. In Old Math, their silly idea that the derivative was a tangent slope to a point of the graph curve, is never able to link up with the integral as area under the graph curve.
>
> So, you, Ross, never had a valid proof of FTC, in fact, you were so mindless in math, you never realized calculus was geometry, so you needed a geometry proof of FTC. But do not be sad, for no-one in math knew this about calculus. The entire world of mathematicians were under a spell of dumbnification when it comes to FTC.
> > No, in 1994 I was just learning about Mosaic (then Netscape) and WWW,
> > then though since some twenty or more years ago I've maintained a view of
> > continuity as line-drawing and outlined for foundations a way forward
> > with explanations / apologetics that eliminate paradoxes and result in
> > a more replete fundamental theory of real numbers.
> >
> > Such usual sentiment poisoning is more-than-less a usual psycho's route
> > to the injury of others. But, AP has an outright persecution complex that
> > I'd hope not to provoke - like a snarling bum on the street you don't want
> > to have to beat down. (There are at least two kinds of people and their
> > sentiments are basically opposites.)
> >
> > "You'll never hear it from heavyweights. You'll never hear negative things
> > from important people, you'll only hear productive things and constructive
> > things. There isn't anybody I can rap or will I rap at any time about anything.
> > I may disagree and I may have another opinion, but I respect the fact that
> > they have the right to that opinion. And, I haven't got the time to be negative -
> > that makes you old, and it makes you tired and sick."
> > -- Jerry Lewis on Dick Cavett the other day 50 years ago
> >
> >
> > So, this AP might be a Quixote while some giant AP emits algebraic geometry -
> > automated emotion emulation of the shallow sort is usually a disdain.
> >
> >
> > Anyways, though, AP, whoever believes your hypothesis would be relying on
> > its authority - which if found lacking might leave them bereft faith in their own
> > reason - which was undeserved. Such is among reasons why mathematical and
> > logical foundations are very interesting and compelling, and to provide
> > deterministic reasoning over a wavy unsure-meter. Congratulations on
> > being "King of Science, especially Physics".
> >
> >
> > Ross, though, enjoy your posts, and there are tens of thousands of mine here.
> > Which I defend and hold and are the sane over time, neatly durable and when
> > not actively hidden from search, the deluge. All neatly tucked away.
> >
> >
> > (I don't have any affiliation with Columbia.)
> Well you should for maybe they can teach you how to _Not_ be elliptical all the time and talk straight, talk narrow. Maybe psychology can wean you out of your affliction.

Dear James Leech, when you get the Logic dept and the Math dept into your office to reprimand them for teaching falsehoods, for spreading propaganda, for harassing students with unintelligible nonsense of "limit analysis" or that AND truth table is Boole's TFFF when it truly is TTTF. Dr. Leech do not let these correct professors talk elliptical to you as they propagandize their students.

The failure Ross at math as his con-art proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, his failure as all the math professors at Queens Univ is they must show how derivative dy/dx a division is the inverse of dy X dx the integral rectangle. And no math professor in the world has shown that true with their Non Sequitor of a "limit analysis". Their limit analysis does not show dy/dx is the inverse of dy X dx, just as elliptical as Ross is never able to give you a straight answer on anything.

Mr. Leech, you probably have to fire and dismiss your entire math and logic departments of Queen's University to stop the brainwash propaganda of your failed math and logic professors.

AP

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)

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.