novaBBS - sci.math - 2-Google we need you to have a Balanced Searth hit on Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, where none can do a valid, let alone geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, on the first page of a Google Search hits.

2-Google we need you to have a Balanced Searth hit on Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, where none can do a valid, let alone geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, on the first page of a search for them.
17 views
by
Robert's profile photo
Robert wrote:
May 25, 2021, 2:05:20 PM

As Robert precisely emphasises and entices us in, on the fact that too many modern day puffed up con-artists of mathematics run around chasing fame and fortune but never any math truth and reality. They are very very poor teachers of the subject as seen by most students veer away from taking math, when in fact, math can be, yes, can be the easiest subject of the Sciences as seen by Harold Jacobs book Mathematics a Human Endeavor, or Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS.

But few if any mathematicians want to make math simple easy and fun. No, instead they go the opposite way to make math a reaping of fame and fortune on their ill gotten gains by making math obfuscation, obtuse, obnoxious and abhorrent, and ugly in classrooms.

And Google needs to address the "fame and fortune seeking math professor" that destroys the subject of mathematics for they perpetuate nonsense such as a "limit analysis proof" on the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, yet these con-artists of Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, John Baez, Chandler Davis, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, all know that Calculus is geometry. Yet ask anyone of them, ask them, where is their geometry proof of FTC, and not a mindless non sequitur that is a limit analysis.

Too busy chasing after fame and fortune Dr. Wiles ? Too busy chasing after fame and fortune Dr. Tao?

Thank you Google, thank you for having Balanced Reported Google Search hits of Dan Christensen for on his 1st page of Google hits the 7th entry on 1st page reads:

Re: Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of...
>Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.
>Dan Christensen flunked the Math Test of a...

Thank you Google, and please, please put such a Balanced Reporting hit on 1st page of Terence Tao, of Andrew Wiles, of Thomas Hales, of John Stillwell, of John Baez, of Jill Pipher, of Ken Ribet, of Chandler Davis, because, Google, their hits are nothing but skewed propaganda where in the case of Tao, every other paragraph is peppered with "oh, oh, he is such a genius" when the true facts is that Terence Tao is a math failure who runs a torture chamber on youngster students math education for the imp Terence Tao still teaches a ellipse is a slant cut in single cone when the truth is the oval is that slant cut never the ellipse, and still teaches the error filled Boole logic of AND truth table being TFFF when in reality it is TTTF, because Tao's teaching of such logic leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, but worst, worst of all Dr. Tao knows Calculus is geometry, yet the imp can never do a geometry proof of FTC.

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)

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.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Length: 72 pages

File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
 

Please, Google, have fair and Balanced Search Engine hits, and we are very tired of the first 100,000 hits on Tao saying what a wonderful genius he is, yet this wreck of math cannot even acknowledge Calculus is geometry and give a proof thereof.

Click here to read the complete article

Archimedes Plutonium kirjutas kolmapäev, 26. mai 2021 kl 16:48:29 UTC+3:
> 2-Google we need you to have a Balanced Searth hit on Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, where none can do a valid, let alone geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, on the first page of a search for them.
> 17 views
> by
> Robert's profile photo
> Robert wrote:
> May 25, 2021, 2:05:20 PM
>
> As Robert precisely emphasises and entices us in, on the fact that too many modern day puffed up con-artists of mathematics run around chasing fame and fortune but never any math truth and reality. They are very very poor teachers of the subject as seen by most students veer away from taking math, when in fact, math can be, yes, can be the easiest subject of the Sciences as seen by Harold Jacobs book Mathematics a Human Endeavor, or Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS.
>

^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§½½¨^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£[½[£$@£½@}¬$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§½½¨^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£[½[£$@£½@}¬$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§½½¨^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£[½[£$@£½@}¬$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@}[]]^>^<^^§¨§½½¨^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£[½[£$@£½@}^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§½½¨^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§½½¨^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£[½[£$@£½@}¬$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@½[£$@£[½[£$@£½@}¬$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@¬$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨½[}[]]^>^<[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§½½¨^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§½½¨^§/*½½¨^§/*½[½[£$@£½@}$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@£[½[£$@£½@}¬$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@½[£$@£[½[£$@£½@}¬$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@¬$£{}$½[}[]]^>^<^^§¨§[½[£$@

> But few if any mathematicians want to make math simple easy and fun. No, instead they go the opposite way to make math a reaping of fame and fortune on their ill gotten gains by making math obfuscation, obtuse, obnoxious and abhorrent, and ugly in classrooms.
>
> And Google needs to address the "fame and fortune seeking math professor" that destroys the subject of mathematics for they perpetuate nonsense such as a "limit analysis proof" on the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, yet these con-artists of Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, John Baez, Chandler Davis, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, all know that Calculus is geometry. Yet ask anyone of them, ask them, where is their geometry proof of FTC, and not a mindless non sequitur that is a limit analysis.
>
> Too busy chasing after fame and fortune Dr. Wiles ? Too busy chasing after fame and fortune Dr. Tao?
>
> Thank you Google, thank you for having Balanced Reported Google Search hits of Dan Christensen for on his 1st page of Google hits the 7th entry on 1st page reads:
>
> Re: Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of...
> >Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.
> >Dan Christensen flunked the Math Test of a...
>
> Thank you Google, and please, please put such a Balanced Reporting hit on 1st page of Terence Tao, of Andrew Wiles, of Thomas Hales, of John Stillwell, of John Baez, of Jill Pipher, of Ken Ribet, of Chandler Davis, because, Google, their hits are nothing but skewed propaganda where in the case of Tao, every other paragraph is peppered with "oh, oh, he is such a genius" when the true facts is that Terence Tao is a math failure who runs a torture chamber on youngster students math education for the imp Terence Tao still teaches a ellipse is a slant cut in single cone when the truth is the oval is that slant cut never the ellipse, and still teaches the error filled Boole logic of AND truth table being TFFF when in reality it is TTTF, because Tao's teaching of such logic leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, but worst, worst of all Dr. Tao knows Calculus is geometry, yet the imp can never do a geometry proof of FTC.
>
> 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)
>
> 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.
>
> My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
>
> Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
>
>
> Length: 72 pages
>
> File Size: 773 KB
> Print Length: 72 pages
> Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
>
>
> Please, Google, have fair and Balanced Search Engine hits, and we are very tired of the first 100,000 hits on Tao saying what a wonderful genius he is, yet this wreck of math cannot even acknowledge Calculus is geometry and give a proof thereof.
>
> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics

Click here to read the complete article

Subject	Author
2-Google we need you to have a Balanced Searth hit on Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao,	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Archimedes "irrelevant" Plutonium flunked the math test of a	Michael Moroney
Re: 2-Google we need you to have a Balanced Searth hit on Andrew	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: 2-Google we need you to have a Balanced Searth hit on Andrew	Mina Arvuti lähedal

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.

tech / sci.math / 2-Google we need you to have a Balanced Searth hit on Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, where none can do a valid, let alone geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, on the first page of a Google Search hits.