(L) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 67 fakes and mistakes of Old Math.

Last revision was 16May2021.

Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds question of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Some of these can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series, but the entries keep changing and added on new, means I need to have a separate book for these fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for ages 18-19 Freshperson College, math textbook series, book 3
Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.

Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak, the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science, unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require new math to handle the new physics.

Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.

Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.

The listings in Mathopedia of errors, mistakes and fakes is based on the idea that Calculus is the supreme achievement of all of mathematics for it is the essential math of doing Physics electricity and magnetism. And in order to have a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we must clean up and clean out all the mistakes, fakes and errors of Old Math, erst, we have no Calculus. So calculus is the consistency maker for the rest of all of mathematics.

1) Calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a proof that derivative and integral are inverses of one another, just as addition and subtraction are inverses, or, multiplication and division are inverses. The only way to obtain a geometry proof is to clean up and clean out all the fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math, such as their fake numbers-- the Reals. Their fake definition of function allowing anything be a function. Their fakery of a continuum when even physics by 1900 with Planck onwards in Quantum Mechanics proving the Universe is discrete Space not a continuum, yet by 1900 onwards those in mathematics following the idiotic continuum in the Continuum Hypothesis with even more avid interest, when they should have thrown the continuum on a trashpile of shame.

2) The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, because you have to need and apply one mechanism only to obtain the true numbers of mathematics-- Mathematical Induction. In Old Math they had just a tiny few intelligent mathematicians, Kronecker, who emerged from the gaggle crowd of kooks to notice that Naturals all come from one single mechanism-- Mathematical Induction. But Old Math never had a crowd of mathematicians with logical brains to say-- all our numbers need to come from the one mechanism of Mathematical Induction.

3) The true numbers of math have empty space between successor and predecessor numbers. For example the 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . . , 9.8, 9.9, 10..0. Where no numbers exist between .1 and .2, etc. Only discrete numbers allow us to give a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

4) All functions of mathematics must be a polynomial, and if not a polynomial, convert the offering to a polynomial over a specific interval.

5) Space is discrete and all lines in space are strings of attached straight lines.

6) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
We can still keep the name "curve" as long as we know it is a string of fine tiny straightline segments strung together in what looks like a smooth curve. If curves exist, then the Calculus in Fundamental Theorem of Calculus cannot be proven and thus Calculus does not exist. We all know that we have to have Calculus, and so we throw out onto the trash pile the curve of Old Math. And this is reasonable because starting in 1900 in physics there arose the Quantum Mechanics of Space being discrete. And a discrete space has no continuum, has no curve of Old Math.

7) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.

8) Limit analysis was an insane fakery in Old Math, concocted because Old Math needed the excuse of some proof, so they invented the monster con-artist trick that a limit analysis would divert the fact it is no proof at all, but a Non Sequitur argument. Limit analysis is juju totem witchcraft dance around a desire to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Just as idiotic as dancing around a sick person of a virus is going to cure the person.

9) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.

10) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.

11) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.

12) Further in Calculus, they knew you could do a transform of coordinate points to turn any function into a polynomial function, a method of Lagrange.. However, they in Old Math were too stupid to take this transform to its highest form-- all functions are polynomial functions and only polynomial functions. When you learn that-- the derivative and integral of any and every function of math is a snap breeze simple and easy.

13) With the error filled 4 quadrants, when it should be 1st Quadrant Only, we have Trigonometry's sine and cosine with the fakery of sinusoid wave when it never was that. The sine and cosine are semicircle waves, and no sinusoid wave exists.

14) There is only one Geometry-- Euclidean, and there is not three distinct geometries of elliptical Riemannian or hyperbolic Lobachevsky. Those two are just duals that make up Euclidean.

15) Torus, volume and surface area formulas in Old Math are all screwed up and in error because they imagined bending a cylinder to form a torus. This brings back memories, for I had to do a percentage formula, since I could not follow the fake way of bending a cylinder. Where 78.5% of Disc Torus (pi)R^2h - (pi)r^2h is the volume of Circle Torus, and 78.5% of Disc Torus 2(pi)Rh + 2(pi)rh + 2 ((pi)R^2 - (pi)r^2) is the surface area of Circle Torus..

16) Ellipse is never a single cone slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut. Although you do get an ellipse from double cones of this configuration <> which in Old Math was the hyperbola, but two hyperbolas joined together to form a ellipse.

17) All Parallelepipeds reduced to a Rectangular Box by making 2 cuts and pastes. Volume of the original Parallelepiped is simply a*b*c of the Rectangular Box length*width*depth formed. Old Math never understood that a precise definition of Parallelepiped has two kinds, the parallelepiped that has 90 degree angles and the parallelepiped that has no 90 degree angle.

Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics Archimedes "little fish"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> (L) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 67 fakes and mistakes of Old Math.
>
1) Ludwig Poehlmann
2) Ludwig Hansen
3) Ludwig van Ludvig
4) Ludwig Plutonium
5) Archimedes Plutonium
6) Archimedes Plutonium
....
67) Archimedes Plutonium

Kibo on shit for brains Dr. Tao, Wiles, Hales, Stillwell can never give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

On Monday, May 24, 2021 at 8:31:42 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics

Re: 3- Kibo Parry Moroney says Dr. Tao, Hales, Stillwell, Wiles, educators NSF Kelvin Droegemeier and Dept of Educ. Betsy DeVos as "failures and turds of science education"
265 views by
Mutt Buncher's profile photo
Mutt Buncher
Jul 24, 2020, 1:46:30 PM

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)

#6-1, 39th published book

AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in General Chemistry & Reference

The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.

Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.
Length: 12 pages

Product details
File Size: 2207 KB
Print Length: 12 pages
Publication Date: April 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QKHRWG8
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #220,321 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#39 in General Chemistry & Reference
#381 in General Chemistry

#4-2, 40th published book

How the Sun and Stars truly shine, not by fusion, but by Faraday's Law (Physics series for High School Book 2) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

One of my recent books (published a few days ago) was the AP model of the interior of atoms replacing the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom. And the differences are vast between these two atom models, for the AP model has the Faraday law going on, with actual work and job for the subatomic particles.. And in that Atom model book, I was complaining that our modern science education school system has no good way of ridding itself of fake science where we keep on teaching propaganda and fake science for as much as 50 years beyond the discovery of what the true underlying science actually is. I gave as an example the Wegener Continental Drift theory in geology, where students had to suffer 50 years of a fake static-earth-theory when the Continental Drift theory was all around. One of the reasons for the delay in teaching the truth of science, is there is so much money interests involved of people selling fake science textbooks. And this is where the Internet can come in and play a vital role in school education, because the Internet can publish books of "true science" and get them exposed to a world audience, and so fake science like the static-earth theory would have been gone long before 50 years had elapsed if the internet were present for Wegener.

But now an even bigger and more important theory of science and physics is here and threatens to throw out as fake science the fusion theory of star energy, especially since it is "How the Sun shines". In effect, the question is, how do all stars shine? What is their energy source. And hard to believe that this topic in current science education with their explanation as "being fusion" is fake science. We all know what the answer is from present day science-- that stars and sun shine because of fusion. That they fuse hydrogen and light elements to make heavier elements like helium and in that fusion they give off energy which is sunshine. But is it true? Is that true science. You would be surprised to find out, that such is not the truth of how stars and Sun shine. They do not shine because of fusion. They shine because the Faraday law is going on inside each and every atom in that star or the Sun.

Now, here is another science teaching that needs to replace the fake science of fusion for the Sun and stars. And it should not take 50 years like Wegener's continental drift to push out the fake static earth theory. We should not have to wait 50 years for our teachers to teach the truth about how the stars and Sun shine with energy. And so, here again, just as in the previous book "AP's model of the Atom", I present the old theory of how stars shine and alongside that old fake theory, I present the new true theory. And in that presentation, we can give the entire science education community, give them about say 5 years of time in which to completely remove the old fake theory that fusion causes stars and Sun to shine with energy. When in fact, the truth is, Faraday Law causes stars and the Sun to shine.

Cover Picture is my photograph of a Google search on my computer of Sun images.
Length: 14 pages

Product details
File Size: 1629 KB
Print Length: 14 pages
Publication Date: April 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QRPZQ4Q
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #289,187 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4150 in Physics (Books)
#8 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#679 in Physics (Kindle Store)



#4-3, 26th published book

AP-Faraday Law replacing Nebular Dust Cloud theory (Physics series for High School Book 3) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

How our Sun and planets that make-up the Solar System, came to be is not the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. Nebular Dust Cloud is a fake theory that posits the remnants of long past supernova explosions creating dust and uniformly spread, and that this dust cloud condensed into forming our Solar System is a silly theory proffered by silly mind's of science. For one, it makes no sense that our Universe has many many supernova explosions and dust clouds spread uniformly in vast regions of the universe to account for all solar systems. Supernova are rare and cannot explain the abundance and uniformity of solar systems. When science has no theory to explain something-- they grab the first silly theory that comes along, no matter how bad it is, for science abhors a vacuum of explanation. What this book offers is a alternative theory of how the Solar System formed that makes logical sense given the observations. I believe the true theory of how the Solar System formed starts around 1977 with Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" with his "new radioactivities". Then that "new radioactivities" is picked up by AP in his Plutonium Atom Totality theory as seed-dots of the electron dot cloud, by 1990. And during the 1990's AP used a mechanism of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm), explaining that particles of energy like neutrons or photons are shot from the Atom Totality Nucleus to increase the mass of astronomy bodies and let them grow larger. But not much else occurred on this theory until 2017. Then by 2017, this new-radioactivities and seed dots and rsnm is further elaborated upon by the real electron of atoms is the muon at 105MeV and the real proton is 840 MeV, and the little particle that J.J. Thomson discovered in 1897 was in fact, Dirac's magnetic monopole at .5MeV. What that discovery lead to in 2018 is the realization that subatomic particles are doing a job, a task, doing work inside of atoms, doing a function inside of atoms, where the proton is a Faraday coil and a muon is a Faraday bar magnet doing the Faraday law in producing-- electricity, magnetic monopoles. As the atoms produce monopoles, the atom itself grows, and increases in size and mass to grow into a new atomic numbered atom, where hydrogen grows into helium, helium grows into lithium, etc etc. So by 2018, we see how atoms grow into newer atoms and thus, the creation and formation and growing of our Solar System is simply the atoms growing inside themselves, from taking the Space they occupy and converting Space via AP-Faraday Law into creating new and more energy, mass, matter, becoming a newer higher atomic element. So we do not need a Nebular Dust Cloud, nor do we need a Big Bang theory.