Google we need you to be Balanced Reporting, for you would agree, journalism and that is what searches have become-- good proper journalism, not one-sided. We need you Google to act like James Leech search for Rose M. Patten and Linda Hasenfratz so that Rose can fix and straighten out Toronto Univ and that Linda can fix and straighten out Western Univ, just as James is starting to straighten out and fix Queen's University of math professors and logic professors putting their students into a torture chamber of falsehoods..

Google, the world of science needs you to have Balanced Search hits so that the below appears on first page of Rose M. Patten, on first page of Linda Hasenfratz, on first page of Lawrence Bacow, so that these presidents and chancellors can go into action and begin to fix the lies and propaganda that dumb math and logic professors are putting their students through a torture chamber of science. So that Rose, Linda, and Lawrence can begin to fix their schools of the antiscience that goes on in math and logic classrooms.

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

Google we please need you to have James Leech on first page of a Google Search, so he can fix the corrupt math and logic departments at Queen's University.

-129,301 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by ....
129,301 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 ...
Image
Jim Leech | Prime Minister of Canada
Feb 10, 2017 — Mr. Leech is currently Chancellor of Queen's University and chairs MasterCard Foundation and Toronto General & Western Hospital Foundation. Mr.
Image
Queen's University at Kingston - Wikipedia
Queen's University at Kingston, commonly known as Queen's University or simply Queen's, is a ... Endowment · CA$1.152 billion (2019). Chancellor, James Leech.

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

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.

"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"

Kibo shit for brains John Stillwell, Chandler Davis, John Baez, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Simon Singh-- can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and too stupid to ever realize calculus is geometry.

20May2021, Kibo Parry Moroney wanted to stalk more on shit for brains physicists of their wrong electron, too dumb to ask a question which is the true electron of atoms , the muon or the 0.5MeV particle.

> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:21:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Drag Queen of Science"
> > tarded:
> > That's why you are a shit for brains
> >You can't tell the
> > difference between an electron and Dirac's monopole, or an electron from
> > a muon. It should be easy, since the magnetic monopole

Kibo Parry Moroney new tag??
On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 2:19:40 PM UTC-5, ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:
> "Are you the same

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 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)

Kibo Parry Moroney a failure of science yet stalks sci.math & sci.physics each and every day for the past 28 years.

Kibo's math fools, none could do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, hence, none could ever do a _valid_ proof of FTC, for a limit analysis is nothing but a whitewash.

Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Chandler Davis, John Baez, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Simon Singh. None seemed to know that Calculus is geometry, and none ever lifted a finger to provide a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. I recommend they be drummed out of mathematics before they do more harm and damage to young minds trying to learn mathematics.

Kibo's logic fools, who cannot even recognize the ugly mistake of Boole AND truth table should be TTTF not the daffy TFFF.

Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//

Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler,
Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy,
David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz,
Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman,
Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods

Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 4 OR 3 = 7 with 4 AND 3 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.

Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education

George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap,
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,
David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,

All of them are clowns of logic, although they have interest in logic, none are past a baby stage understanding of what Logic is. They are all worse than the fool George Boole. All of them are a disgrace to the subject we call Logic. All of them are in the same boat as George Boole-- catching pneumonia and then having his wife douse him in bed with cold freezing water and taking cold showers-- thinking that combatting pneumonia is done by getting colder.

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.

On 5/25/2021 3:19 PM, Quantum Bubbles 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.
>
Yes, that's him, alright. AP has wasted at least 28 years here making
up nonsense, pretending it's true and playing make-believe that he's
some sort of genius of math and science. He has a kind heart to animals
(but not people), too bad he didn't follow this to do some good in the
world helping endangered animals, rather than just babbling here. Oh
well, it's his life to waste...

Kibo shit for brains Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Jill Pipher-- can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and too stupid to ever realize calculus is geometry.

20May2021, Kibo Parry Moroney wanted to stalk more on shit for brains physicists of their wrong electron, too dumb to ask a question which is the true electron of atoms , the muon or the 0.5MeV particle.

> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:21:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Drag Queen of Science"
> > tarded:
> > That's why you are a shit for brains
> >You can't tell the
> > difference between an electron and Dirac's monopole, or an electron from
> > a muon. It should be easy, since the magnetic monopole

Kibo Parry Moroney new tag??
On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 2:19:40 PM UTC-5, ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:
> "Are you the same

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 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)

Kibo Parry Moroney a failure of science yet stalks sci.math & sci.physics each and every day for the past 28 years.

Kibo's math fools, none could do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, hence, none could ever do a _valid_ proof of FTC, for a limit analysis is nothing but a whitewash.

Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Chandler Davis, John Baez, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Simon Singh. None seemed to know that Calculus is geometry, and none ever lifted a finger to provide a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. I recommend they be drummed out of mathematics before they do more harm and damage to young minds trying to learn mathematics.

Kibo's logic fools, who cannot even recognize the ugly mistake of Boole AND truth table should be TTTF not the daffy TFFF.

Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//

Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler,
Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy,
David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz,
Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman,
Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods

Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 4 OR 3 = 7 with 4 AND 3 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.

Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education

George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap,
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,
David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,

All of them are clowns of logic, although they have interest in logic, none are past a baby stage understanding of what Logic is. They are all worse than the fool George Boole. All of them are a disgrace to the subject we call Logic. All of them are in the same boat as George Boole-- catching pneumonia and then having his wife douse him in bed with cold freezing water and taking cold showers-- thinking that combatting pneumonia is done by getting colder.

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.