Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds 8% of scientists have committed fraud//You are not a fraud if dumb and ignorant about math, but you are a fraud as you Run, Hide, away from data and facts.

Andrew continues to run and hide from Kin Chung questions, from Roland Dreier evidence and from AP's 2+2=2x2=2^2=4 proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Andrew knows he cannot engage with AP, because Andrew knows his FLT is all fakery con-art. And this makes Andrew Wiles a fraud of math and science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frauds of Physics-- being dumb and stupid and ignorant in physics is not fraud. But, by never engaging in the discussion of which is actually the true electron of atoms-- the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. When physicist run and hide from that question, then, they are frauds of physics and do not belong in physics at all.

You are not a fraud of physics because you are ignorant about physics, no, but you are a fraud when you continue to ignore, run and hide from the most assailant ideas in current ongoing physics.

All of these people on this list are Frauds of Physics as they chose to "run and hide and ignore" the great question of our times-- which in fact is the true electron of atoms-- the muon or 0.5MeV particle?

Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
..
..
little fishes
..
..
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
..
..
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten

74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-4, 105th published book

Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.

Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : March 24, 2020
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• ASIN : B086BGSNXN
• Print Length : 39 pages
• File Size : 935 KB
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)



#1-5, 112th published book

New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.

Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book.. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages

All scientists have to answer to serious questions of their work-- if they run and hide-- they are frauds.

Andrew Wiles is not a mathematician but a fraudster as per the Dutch study.

All scientists have to answer to serious questions of their work-- if they run and hide-- they are frauds. Just like the recent report in SCIENCE magazine. All scientists are obliged to answer to any serious questions of their work. If they run and hide, then, they are fraudsters.

Andrew Wiles is not a mathematician but a fraudster as per the Dutch study.

Andrew Wiles why could Oxford Univ and you never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, only a limit analysis hornswaggle? Perhaps Oxford never teaches geometry would explain it, along with why no-one at Oxford can drop a Kerr or Mason lid down a paper cone and prove the slant cut of a single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. They must not want to get their hands dirty at Oxford in any type of experiment.

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)

y  z
|  /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.  And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium

Kibo Parry M is Andrew Wiles a failure of math-- as he cannot tell apart a Oval from Ellipse and could never do a geometry proof of Calculus Fundamental Theorem.

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 4:26:59 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Apparently, Stupid
>epitome of stupidity, the epiphany of stupid, the
> apotheosis of stupidity.

Kibo, is his stupidity related to the fact he cannot even be bothered by making a paper cone, dropping a Kerr or Mason lid inside and seeing and proving that the slant cut is a oval, never a ellipse, for it takes a High School student just 5 minutes to do this experiment but Andrew has now taken 5 years of ineptitude in even getting started.

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

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)

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

So here we have Andrew Wiles, klutz of math, spending his entire lifetime devoted to mathematics, yet too dumb, too feeble to see that Calculus is geometry, and requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

A magnanimous klutz of math for if Andrew had done a geometry proof of FTC, would quickly see that you cannot have a FTC proof if you do not have a Algebra axiom stating that a Equation of Math exists, if and only if, there is a positive Decimal Grid number always, yes always on the rightside of the Equation at all times.

The importance of that axiom for mathematics, means there is no quintic problem from Tartaglia, Cardan down to Galois. There is no Ribet theorem, nor is there a Langlands program nor is there a Taniyama-Shimura-Wiles nonsense..

If you study math and are absent minded of the Axiom that allows for the existence of any and all EQUATIONS of math, then yes, you will fall fools and trapped into the mindless ideas of quintic and Galois Algebras on down to the pathetic mindless Wiles and his elliptic equations.

The number we call zero, can screw up most every professor of mathematics, thinking they can have zero all alone on the rightside of an equation, deluded to think that this is still an equation of mathematics.

Oh, no, Wiles was not deluded and insane about dividing by zero. No, Wiles had that much of a brain to do math, to know that 5/0 was a no no. But Wiles had no brains when he thought that x^3 +2x^2 + x +1 = 0 was a valid equation of math, and his silly stupid elliptic curves of his nonsense FLT proof hornswaggle.

You see, Wiles never spent enough time in practical down to Earth settings, such as a fruitstand, where a scale of weighing is found. On one side of the scale has to be fruit and the other side has to be a weight. So that Wiles is not having a valid equation if the scale has 0 on the one side. But he would never understand that.

Wiles had the brains to know 4/0 was a no no, but Wiles failed math by never realizing the Axiom of Equations forbids one to think that x^3 +2x^2 + x +1 = 0 is a valid legitimate equation of math, or that x^3 +x^2 = -2, for it is not, it is as bad if not worse than thinking 3/0 is valid and legitimate.

As in the fruitstand, both sides have positive real entities, never a 0 nor ever a negative quantity.

Wiles failed logic, and no-one who is absent of logic will make progress in mathematics.

Yet, there is the math community, heaping honors and praise and awards to the failure of math Andrew Wiles, who to this day, thinks 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction, who thinks the ellipse is a conic slant cut when in truth that is the oval, and to this day, is so failed and stupid in math he could never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 21:57:47 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> So here we have Andrew Wiles, klutz of math, spending his entire lifetime devoted to mathematics, yet too dumb, too feeble to see that Calculus is geometry, and requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> A magnanimous klutz of math for if Andrew had done a geometry proof of FTC, would quickly see that you cannot have a FTC proof if you do not have a Algebra axiom stating that a Equation of Math exists, if and only if, there is a positive Decimal Grid number always, yes always on the rightside of the Equation at all times.
>
> The importance of that axiom for mathematics, means there is no quintic problem from Tartaglia, Cardan down to Galois. There is no Ribet theorem, nor is there a Langlands program nor is there a Taniyama-Shimura-Wiles nonsense.
>
> If you study math and are absent minded of the Axiom that allows for the existence of any and all EQUATIONS of math, then yes, you will fall fools and trapped into the mindless ideas of quintic and Galois Algebras on down to the pathetic mindless Wiles and his elliptic equations.
>
> The number we call zero, can screw up most every professor of mathematics, thinking they can have zero all alone on the rightside of an equation, deluded to think that this is still an equation of mathematics.
>
> Oh, no, Wiles was not deluded and insane about dividing by zero. No, Wiles had that much of a brain to do math, to know that 5/0 was a no no. But Wiles had no brains when he thought that x^3 +2x^2 + x +1 = 0 was a valid equation of math, and his silly stupid elliptic curves of his nonsense FLT proof hornswaggle.
>
> You see, Wiles never spent enough time in practical down to Earth settings, such as a fruitstand, where a scale of weighing is found. On one side of the scale has to be fruit and the other side has to be a weight. So that Wiles is not having a valid equation if the scale has 0 on the one side. But he would never understand that.
>
> Wiles had the brains to know 4/0 was a no no, but Wiles failed math by never realizing the Axiom of Equations forbids one to think that x^3 +2x^2 + x +1 = 0 is a valid legitimate equation of math, or that x^3 +x^2 = -2, for it is not, it is as bad if not worse than thinking 3/0 is valid and legitimate.
>
> As in the fruitstand, both sides have positive real entities, never a 0 nor ever a negative quantity.
>
> Wiles failed logic, and no-one who is absent of logic will make progress in mathematics.
>
> Yet, there is the math community, heaping honors and praise and awards to the failure of math Andrew Wiles, who to this day, thinks 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction, who thinks the ellipse is a conic slant cut when in truth that is the oval, and to this day, is so failed and stupid in math he could never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics
I'm quite sure Wiles is perfectly aware about the proof of FTC.

Spamming jackarses John Gabriel with his lover Zelos Malum play acting with his one liners. Zelos, why are you so homoantimath.
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 3:02:50 PM UTC-5, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm quite sure Wiles is perfectly aware about the proof of FTC.

But it is a limit analysis, not even a proof. Just because you analyze something does not mean you proven it, and this is the overall symptom of Andrew Wiles-- no logical mind to be in math proofs.

And Markus, the same symptoms show up in Zelos Malum spamming every night all 15 John Gabriel threads, spamming them so they remain permanent spam fixtures in sci.math, like a christmas tree never taken down and left up all year long.

This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
, …
zelos...@gmail.com
67
Calculus is 100% pure geometry.
lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 09:52:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Friday, 17 September
12:06 AM

This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
, …
zelos...@gmail.com
9 unread,
It's not that I don't understand, rather it's that I disagree with the most of you morons.
12:05 AM

This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
, …
zelos...@gmail.com
121
unread,
The Gabriel Polynomial - an advanced concept not possible in mainstream calculus.
12:05 AM

Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
, …
zelos...@gmail.com
67
unread,
John Gabriel said "Let there be light and there was light!"
lördag 18 september 2021 kl. 10:08:41 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Friday, 17 September
12:05 AM

This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
, …
zelos...@gmail.com
166
unread,
Only a genius could write what is written in my latest article.
12:02 AM


Why is Oxford Andrew Wiles a failure in math and physics, cannot even take 9 times 105 and see that it is 945? I mean, well, why ever bother with the mindless Weinberg-Glashow-Gell-Mann Standard Model nonsense of physics, as some sort of Algebra, when you cannot do 9x105=945 and interpret it correctly of what you have done in physics.

Wiles cannot even admit Boole made a mistake in his logic with his truth tables of OR with AND, for Boole messed up and has 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction, and it is this type of Logic that runs through and through the con-art fakery of Wiles FLT alleged proof. But worse yet, Wiles knows calculus is geometry, yet all he can muster is a "limit analysis hornswaggle". Wiles does not teach young students math but propagandizes fake math, such as his Fermat's Last Theorem, run Andrew, hide Andrew.

Wiles cannot even take a paper scroll it into a cone and drop a Kerr lid inside and see the slant is a oval, never the ellipse for which even a High School student can witness and prove. No, Wiles is a muddle headed fruitcake of mathematics that runs and hides when he hears Wiles discovered the truth behind the conic slant cut.

Much the same problem with Marcela Carena of Fermi Natl. Lab with the excessive muon spin as reported in Scientific American, Oct2021. Not able to ask the most simple and basic question of physics, which is the atom's true real electron is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus or is it the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. No, Marcela Carena and John Baez rather listen to a herd community, rather than practice and do physics with a logical mind-- ask the simple questions and do the logical experiments from those logical questions.

Physics, left up to Baez and his buddies of Weinberg, Glashow, Gell-Mann, Peter Higgs, Ed Witten those buddies are comfortable with a electron at 0.5MeV, proton at 938MeV, neutron at 940MeV and all three of them as "do nothing particles" with the amazing audacity of saying the 0.5MeV particle flys around the outside of a 938MeV proton at nearly the speed of light 99.99% speed of light, yet never flys off. For Baez, and his buddies never understood Angular Momentum. Never could interpret 9 x 105 = 938 or 940 within Sigma Error.

But then along comes AP, and says-- sigma error is important in physics and use it.

AP says-- you cannot have "do nothing particles in physics".

AP says-- the true electron of atoms is the muon and stuck inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law by producing Dirac magnetic monopoles such as the 0.5MeV dipole as electricity.

Is John Baez or Sheldon Glashow or Peter Higgs or Ed Witten still able to learn in science, or are they just complete washed up and washed out. Are they complete wash out failures of physics? Probably complete failures because they cannot even muster the intelligence of dropping a Kerr or Mason lid inside a folded up paper cone and acknowledge something as simple as what a High School student can prove, that a slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, (see AP books below). Yet that is what the "pack of fools Baez, Glashow, Higgs, Witten" still teach their electron is 0.5MeV, their ellipse is slant cut in cone, but probably worst of all, these bozos still teach the Boole logic of 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction. Imagine that, physics professors who cannot even think logically correct, no wonder they are incapable of 9 x 105.

...
..- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
..' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
.. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
.. ' ` `. |
.. '. '
.. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
..' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am Andrew Wiles, who when hearing of AP's proof that slant cut in cone is truly a Oval, never the ellipse, I did the biggest no, no you can ever do in science, for I went into a run and hide mode, run Andrew, hide Andrew, rather than do the experiment. I bent over backwards to redefine the ellipse in order to deny AP credit of a discovery. For I, Andrew Wiles feels it more important to suppress the truth in science than to acknowledge the truth, and my brethren Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell seem to all feel the same way-- suppress truth of science and run and hide, hide and run.

` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
....'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#3-1, 2nd published book

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

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

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

Length: 1150 pages

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

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.

Donald Trump's profile photo
Donald Trump
, …
Archimedes Plutonium
4 unread,
Re: Roi des Rois de la Science --AP-- King of Science, what we throw out of Old Math as fakery// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore year College, math textbook series, book 4
11:15 PM

Donald Trump's profile photo
Donald Trump
,
Archimedes Plutonium
3 unread,
Re: Rey de Reyes de la Ciencia --AP-- King of Science, what we throw out of Old Math as fakery// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore year College, math textbook series, book 4
11:13 PM

This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Mostowski Collapse
17
unread,
The Vacuous Truth about the Present King of France: **** CORRECTION ***
10:03 PM

This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
Donald Trump's profile photo
Donald Trump
,
Archimedes Plutonium
5 Re: -- König der Wissenschaft --AP-- King of Science---und Konig von Physik, Mathematik, Zoologie und der Goths, Visigoths und OstraGoths
7:23 PM

Doctor Anagram's profile photo
Doctor Anagram
, …
Archimedes Plutonium
6 Re: 23. love you King of Science, kiss kiss, Archimedes Plutonium for bringing us a cure of covid-19 via a MRI or CT scan at resonant frequency that kills a pocket of the virus allowing the white blood cells to kill the rest// Roi des Rois de la Science
7:21 PM

Ivanna Humpalot's profile photo
Ivanna Humpalot
, …
Archimedes Plutonium
10
Re: Cambridge's Hobson,Hope-Coles,Howie,Hughes,Irvine,Jardine,Jenkins,Jones,Josephson,Keyser,Khmeinitskii,King,Kotlyar,Lamacraft,Lasenby,Lester,Longair, too stupid to see 10 OR 4 = 14 is crazy, too stupid to see real proton is 840 MeV not 938
6:09 PM

Mostowski Collapse's profile photo
Mostowski Collapse
, …
Archimedes Plutonium
6 Re: 11)Cambridge Univ, Darwin Smith, John Coates, where Jan Bielawski asks where is your proof// I proved Oval is conic
6:05 PM

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2 NUMBTURBO, new game, using all the world chip supply, played by all teenagers.

Kibo Parry M on Andrew Wiles & Oxford Univ are psychoceramic & analbuttfuckmanure, but then Kibo was insane starting way back in 1990s anyway. And for some reason, the USA govt encourages and probably pays him to spam sci.math and sci.physics with hate tripe.

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 1:37:56 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"analbuttfuckmanure"
> fails at math and science:
>psychoceramic
On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 10:20:47 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:
On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:48:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"AnalButtfuckManure"
> fails at math and science:
> > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:28:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> "AnalButtfuckManure"
> >

Why cannot Andrew Wiles nor Oxford Univ correct their error that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. Nor can any of them ever give a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, meaning that they are complete failures of science, math, and common sense reasoning.

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)

#8-3, 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
Length: 61 pages

File Size: 1241 KB
Print Length: 61 pages
Publication Date: March 20, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07NMV8NQQ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

#8-4, 28th published book

World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.

Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.
Length: 29 pages

File Size: 1183 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 23, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PZ2Y5RV
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



#8-5, 6th published book

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

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

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

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

Will Andrew Wiles be known as the biggest con-artist math of the 20th century, for surely he cannot admit the slant cut of single cone is a oval, not the ellipse. Something a High School student can prove, but not Andrew Wiles, the flip flop failure of math, math failure cannot admit that a single cone has one axis of symmetry, meaning it is not possible for the slant cut to be a ellipse but has to be a Oval. Granted a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry so the slant cut is a ellipse. But Andrew Wiles is acting like a absolute mindless idiot on this mathematics. Why can he not state in a newspaper at Oxford Univ that he was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is a OVAL. Why does Andrew Wiles want to play more and more of a mindless fool of mathematics, for without admitting mistakes, Dr. Wiles has no hope of ever doing a correct proper geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not his silly "limit analysis hornswaggle". Apparently, Andrew is bad in geometry and in math proofs for he must think that a analysis is a proof, and that is just not the case. And so one must conclude that Andrew Wiles is not even a mathematician but is a crackpot of mathematics, not a mathematician at all.

> 
> 
> 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.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
>
> #11-2, 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 15Dec2021. 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".. And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 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)
> On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> > In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
>
> Andrew, you are nothing but a deluded crank of mathematics. So dumb are you in mathematics, you could not even spot the flaw of Euler's alleged proof of FLT in exponent 3.
> 
> 
> 6th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
>
> Preface:
> Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
>
> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
>
> Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
>
> As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> 

Will Andrew Wiles be known as the biggest con-artist math of the 20th century, for surely he cannot admit the slant cut of single cone is a oval, not the ellipse. Something a High School student can prove, but not Andrew Wiles, the flip flop failure of math, math failure cannot admit that a single cone has one axis of symmetry, meaning it is not possible for the slant cut to be a ellipse but has to be a Oval. Granted a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry so the slant cut is a ellipse. But Andrew Wiles is acting like a absolute mindless idiot on this mathematics. Why can he not state in a newspaper at Oxford Univ that he was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is a OVAL. Why does Andrew Wiles want to play more and more of a mindless fool of mathematics, for without admitting mistakes, Dr. Wiles has no hope of ever doing a correct proper geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not his silly "limit analysis hornswaggle". Apparently, Andrew is bad in geometry and in math proofs for he must think that a analysis is a proof, and that is just not the case. And so one must conclude that Andrew Wiles is not even a mathematician but is a crackpot of mathematics, not a mathematician at all.



> 
> 
> 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.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
>
> #11-2, 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 15Dec2021. 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".. And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 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)
> On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> > In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
>
> Andrew, you are nothing but a deluded crank of mathematics. So dumb are you in mathematics, you could not even spot the flaw of Euler's alleged proof of FLT in exponent 3.
> 
> 
> 6th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
>
> Preface:
> Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
>
> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
>
> Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
>
> As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> 


Will Andrew Wiles be known as the biggest con-artist math of the 20th century, for surely he cannot admit the slant cut of single cone is a oval, not the ellipse. Something a High School student can prove, but not Andrew Wiles, the flip flop failure of math, math failure cannot admit that a single cone has one axis of symmetry, meaning it is not possible for the slant cut to be a ellipse but has to be a Oval. Granted a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry so the slant cut is a ellipse. But Andrew Wiles is acting like a absolute mindless idiot on this mathematics. Why can he not state in a newspaper at Oxford Univ that he was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is a OVAL. Why does Andrew Wiles want to play more and more of a mindless fool of mathematics, for without admitting mistakes, Dr. Wiles has no hope of ever doing a correct proper geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not his silly "limit analysis hornswaggle". Apparently, Andrew is bad in geometry and in math proofs for he must think that a analysis is a proof, and that is just not the case. And so one must conclude that Andrew Wiles is not even a mathematician but is a crackpot of mathematics, not a mathematician at all.




> 
> 
> 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.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
>
> #11-2, 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 15Dec2021. 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".. And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 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)
> On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> > In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
>
> Andrew, you are nothing but a deluded crank of mathematics. So dumb are you in mathematics, you could not even spot the flaw of Euler's alleged proof of FLT in exponent 3.
> 
> 
> 6th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
>
> Preface:
> Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
>
> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
>
> Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
>
> As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> 


1> Andrew Wiles, math failure cannot admit that a single cone has one axis of symmetry, meaning it is not possible for the slant cut to be a ellipse but has to be a Oval. Granted a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry so the slant cut is a ellipse. But Andrew Wiles is acting like a absolute mindless idiot on this mathematics. Why can he not state in a newspaper at Oxford Univ that he was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is a OVAL. Why does Andrew Wiles want to play more and more of a mindless fool of mathematics, for without admitting mistakes, Dr. Wiles has no hope of ever doing a correct proper geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not his silly "limit analysis hornswaggle". Apparently, Andrew is bad in geometry and in math proofs for he must think that a analysis is a proof, and that is just not the case. And so one must conclude that Andrew Wiles is not even a mathematician but is a crackpot of mathematics, not a mathematician at all.
> 
> 
2> 3rd published book
>
3> 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.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
>
> #11-2, 11th published book
>
4> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
5> 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".. And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 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)
> On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> > In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
>
> Andrew, you are nothing but a deluded crank of mathematics. So dumb are you in mathematics, you could not even spot the flaw of Euler's alleged proof of FLT in exponent 3.
> 
> 
> 6th published book
>
6> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
>
> Preface:
> Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
>
7> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.


>
> Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
>
> As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> 
> 


2Andrew Wiles, math failure cannot admit that a single cone has one axis of symmetry, meaning it is not possible for the slant cut to be a ellipse but has to be a Oval. Granted a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry so the slant cut is a ellipse. But Andrew Wiles is acting like a absolute mindless idiot on this mathematics. Why can he not state in a newspaper at Oxford Univ that he was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is a OVAL. Why does Andrew Wiles want to play more and more of a mindless fool of mathematics, for without admitting mistakes, Dr. Wiles has no hope of ever doing a correct proper geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not his silly "limit analysis hornswaggle". Apparently, Andrew is bad in geometry and in math proofs for he must think that a analysis is a proof, and that is just not the case. And so one must conclude that Andrew Wiles is not even a mathematician but is a crackpot of mathematics, not a mathematician at all.
> > 
> > 
> 2> 3rd published book
> >
6> 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
7> > 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> >
> > #11-2, 11th published book
> >
8> 4> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > Preface:
9> 5> 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". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 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)
> > On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> > > In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> >
> > Andrew, you are nothing but a deluded crank of mathematics. So dumb are you in mathematics, you could not even spot the flaw of Euler's alleged proof of FLT in exponent 3.
> > 
> > 
> > 6th published book
> >
> 6> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
> >
> > Preface:
> > Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
> >
10> 7> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
> 
> 
> >
> > Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
> >
> > As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > 
> > 
> 

2Andrew Wiles, math failure cannot admit that a single cone has one axis of symmetry, meaning it is not possible for the slant cut to be a ellipse but has to be a Oval. Granted a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry so the slant cut is a ellipse. But Andrew Wiles is acting like a absolute mindless idiot on this mathematics. Why can he not state in a newspaper at Oxford Univ that he was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is a OVAL. Why does Andrew Wiles want to play more and more of a mindless fool of mathematics, for without admitting mistakes, Dr. Wiles has no hope of ever doing a correct proper geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not his silly "limit analysis hornswaggle". Apparently, Andrew is bad in geometry and in math proofs for he must think that a analysis is a proof, and that is just not the case. And so one must conclude that Andrew Wiles is not even a mathematician but is a crackpot of mathematics, not a mathematician at all.
> > 
> > 
> 2> 3rd published book
> >
6> 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
7> > 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> >
> > #11-2, 11th published book
> >
8> 4> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > Preface:
9> 5> 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". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 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)
> > On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> > > In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> >
> > Andrew, you are nothing but a deluded crank of mathematics. So dumb are you in mathematics, you could not even spot the flaw of Euler's alleged proof of FLT in exponent 3.
> > 
> > 
> > 6th published book
> >
> 6> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
> >
> > Preface:
> > Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
> >
10> 7> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.


> 
> 
> >
> > Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
> >
> > As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > 
> > 
> 


2Andrew Wiles, math failure cannot admit that a single cone has one axis of symmetry, meaning it is not possible for the slant cut to be a ellipse but has to be a Oval. Granted a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry so the slant cut is a ellipse. But Andrew Wiles is acting like a absolute mindless idiot on this mathematics. Why can he not state in a newspaper at Oxford Univ that he was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is a OVAL. Why does Andrew Wiles want to play more and more of a mindless fool of mathematics, for without admitting mistakes, Dr. Wiles has no hope of ever doing a correct proper geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not his silly "limit analysis hornswaggle". Apparently, Andrew is bad in geometry and in math proofs for he must think that a analysis is a proof, and that is just not the case. And so one must conclude that Andrew Wiles is not even a mathematician but is a crackpot of mathematics, not a mathematician at all.
> > 
> > 
> 2> 3rd published book
> >
6> 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
7> > 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> >
> > #11-2, 11th published book
> >
8> 4> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > Preface:
9> 5> 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.

10> 7> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.



> 
> 
> >
> > Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
> >
> > As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > 
> > 
> 


2Andrew Wiles, math failure cannot admit that a single cone has one axis of symmetry, meaning it is not possible for the slant cut to be a ellipse but has to be a Oval. Granted a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry so the slant cut is a ellipse. But Andrew Wiles is acting like a absolute mindless idiot on this mathematics. Why can he not state in a newspaper at Oxford Univ that he was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is a OVAL. Why does Andrew Wiles want to play more and more of a mindless fool of mathematics, for without admitting mistakes, Dr. Wiles has no hope of ever doing a correct proper geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not his silly "limit analysis hornswaggle". Apparently, Andrew is bad in geometry and in math proofs for he must think that a analysis is a proof, and that is just not the case. And so one must conclude that Andrew Wiles is not even a mathematician but is a crackpot of mathematics, not a mathematician at all.

AP requests that Andrew Wiles go to the Oxford Univ newspaper and publish the fact that he now recognizes and admits his mistake-- slant cut in single cone is always a Oval, never the ellipse.

> 3rd published book
> >
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
7> > 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> >
> > #11-2, 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 15Dec2021. 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.

> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.




> 
> 
> >
> > Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
> >
> > As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

y  
|  /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.  And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium

Andrew Wiles the con-art fraud of math with his slant cut of single cone a ellipse when even a High School student can show him it is a oval, acknowledge in Oxford Univ student newspaper that he sees the light of day and recognizes the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse.

Andrew Wiles, math failure cannot admit that a single cone has one axis of symmetry, meaning it is not possible for the slant cut to be a ellipse but has to be a Oval. Granted a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry so the slant cut is a ellipse. But Andrew Wiles is acting like a absolute mindless idiot on this mathematics. Why can he not state in a newspaper at Oxford Univ that he was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is a OVAL. Why does Andrew Wiles want to play more and more of a mindless fool of mathematics, for without admitting mistakes, Dr. Wiles has no hope of ever doing a correct proper geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not his silly "limit analysis hornswaggle". Apparently, Andrew is bad in geometry and in math proofs for he must think that a analysis is a proof, and that is just not the case. And so one must conclude that Andrew Wiles is not even a mathematician but is a crackpot of mathematics, not a mathematician at all.

AP requests that Andrew Wiles go to the Oxford Univ newspaper and publish the fact that he now recognizes and admits his mistake-- slant cut in single cone is always a Oval, never the ellipse.

> 3rd published book
> >
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
7> > 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> >
> > #11-2, 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 15Dec2021. 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.

> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.




> 
> 
> >
> > Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
> >
> > As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

y


| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium


AP requires Andrew Wiles to publish an apology in Oxford Univ student newspaper that he is sorry for misleading all his students that the slant cut in single cone is not a ellipse but is a oval. For Andrew Wiles has a blind spot on geometry for he seems not able to realize a single cone has 1 axis of symmetry.

Andrew Wiles the con-art fraud of math with his slant cut of single cone a ellipse when even a High School student can show him it is a oval, acknowledge in Oxford Univ student newspaper that he sees the light of day and recognizes the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse.

Andrew Wiles, math failure cannot admit that a single cone has one axis of symmetry, meaning it is not possible for the slant cut to be a ellipse but has to be a Oval. Granted a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry so the slant cut is a ellipse. But Andrew Wiles is acting like a absolute mindless idiot on this mathematics. Why can he not state in a newspaper at Oxford Univ that he was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is a OVAL. Why does Andrew Wiles want to play more and more of a mindless fool of mathematics, for without admitting mistakes, Dr. Wiles has no hope of ever doing a correct proper geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not his silly "limit analysis hornswaggle". Apparently, Andrew is bad in geometry and in math proofs for he must think that a analysis is a proof, and that is just not the case. And so one must conclude that Andrew Wiles is not even a mathematician but is a crackpot of mathematics, not a mathematician at all.

AP requests that Andrew Wiles go to the Oxford Univ newspaper and publish the fact that he now recognizes and admits his mistake-- slant cut in single cone is always a Oval, never the ellipse.

> 3rd published book
> >
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
7> > 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> >
> > #11-2, 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 15Dec2021. 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.

> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.




> 
> 
> >
> > Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
> >
> > As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

y



| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium


AP requires Andrew Wiles to publish an apology in Oxford Univ student newspaper that he is sorry for misleading all his students that the slant cut in single cone is not a ellipse but is a oval. For Andrew Wiles has a blind spot on geometry for he seems not able to realize a single cone has 1 axis of symmetry.

Andrew Wiles the con-art fraud of math with his slant cut of single cone a ellipse when even a High School student can show him it is a oval, acknowledge in Oxford Univ student newspaper that he sees the light of day and recognizes the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse.

Andrew Wiles, math failure cannot admit that a single cone has one axis of symmetry, meaning it is not possible for the slant cut to be a ellipse but has to be a Oval. Granted a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry so the slant cut is a ellipse. But Andrew Wiles is acting like a absolute mindless idiot on this mathematics. Why can he not state in a newspaper at Oxford Univ that he was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is a OVAL. Why does Andrew Wiles want to play more and more of a mindless fool of mathematics, for without admitting mistakes, Dr. Wiles has no hope of ever doing a correct proper geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not his silly "limit analysis hornswaggle". Apparently, Andrew is bad in geometry and in math proofs for he must think that a analysis is a proof, and that is just not the case. And so one must conclude that Andrew Wiles is not even a mathematician but is a crackpot of mathematics, not a mathematician at all.

AP requests that Andrew Wiles go to the Oxford Univ newspaper and publish the fact that he now recognizes and admits his mistake-- slant cut in single cone is always a Oval, never the ellipse.

> 3rd published book
> >
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
7> > 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> >
> > #11-2, 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 15Dec2021. 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.


> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.




> 
> 
> >
> > Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
> >
> > As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

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

> AP requires Andrew Wiles to publish an apology in Oxford Univ student
newspaper that he is sorry for misleading all his students that the
slant cut in single cone is not a ellipse but is a oval.

"AP requires?" "AP requires?"

Who the hell does AP think he is, that he believes he can "require" a
great mathematician to lie, or do anything at all, for that matter?

Why would Wiles ever be "required" to obey the blatherings of a nobody
of math and lie for him?

AP needs to understand that AP is a nobody of math, destined for
obscurity once his soul goes to that cosmic atom in the sky, to be
tormented for all eternity by his evil Plutonium atom.

> For Andrew Wiles has a blind spot on geometry for he seems not able
to realize a single cone has 1 axis of symmetry.

Naah, Wiles is much smarter to be fooled by a mathematical "optical
illusion" where it is obvious that the part of the ellipse on the "high"
side of the cone is rather different than the part on the "low" side.
This mathematical illusion fools those without much math smarts. But
Wiles knows the actual center of the ellipse is NOT on the cone's axis
at all! And he understands this simple proof:

From: qbwrfmlx@gmail.com

Here is a plane and cone
x + 1 = z
and
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = z^2

Square the first equation giving us
x^2 + 2*x + 1 = z^2

In the second equation replace z^2 with x^2 + 2*x + 1 giving us
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = x^2 + 2*x + 1

Subtract x^2 + 2*x - 1 from both sides giving us
x^2 - 2*x + 1 + 2*y^2 = 2

Replace x^2 - 2*x + 1 with (x-1)^2 giving us
(x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2

That is EXACTLY the equation of an ellipse
And there are two planes of symmetry.

No matter how you tilt or rotate an ellipse it
REMAINS an ellipse and has TWO PLANES of symmetry,
just like the intersection of a plane and cylinder
remains an ellipse no matter what the slope of the
plane is.

As you can see, the solution is (x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2, so the line
(x=1,y=0) goes through the center of the ellipse, and is NOT the same
line (x=0,y=0) that is the axis of the cone.
Obviously (x-1)^2 is symmetrical around x=1, and 2y^2 is symmetrical
around y=0.

[snip more ellipse errors]

Kibo says Dr. Wiles to publish in Univ Oxford his apology for teaching slant cut in single cone as ellipse when in reality it is a oval.
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 12:39:12 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"barking fuckdog"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics
>requires Andrew Wiles to publish an apology in Oxford Univ student
> newspaper that he is sorry for misleading all his students that the
> slant cut in single cone is not a ellipse but is a oval.

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.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.

Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-2, 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 15Dec2021. 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". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

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.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 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)

y  
|  /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.  And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium

2-Dr Tao needs to publish in UCLA student newspaper that he now sees the light of day that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse and stop his propaganda bullshit math that Dr. Tao pollutes the minds of young students with. Why, any High School student can drop a Kerr lid (circle) into a scrolled up paper cone and eye witness the crescent moon shape added onto the circle to form a OVAL, never the ellipse, yet the bozo the clown of math Terry Tao still polluting the minds of students.

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 4:29:27 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>of Math "little stinker"
>"psychoceramic"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> fails at math and science:
> Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like this.
> Perhaps he is envious of their potential success, which he never had
> because he is a failure at math and science.

AP asks: why, Kibo Parry Moron, is Dartmouth's Hanlon and UCLA's Terence Tao, and Univ San Francisco John Stillwell and Oxford's Andrew Wiles, more dumb than a High School student in mathematics, for the High School student with a paper cone and Kerr lid can demonstrate the slant cut is a Oval, never the ellipse. Why does Hanlon, Tao, Stillwell, Pipher, Ribet, Gerald Edgar, Wiles, Hales, why do they relish in phony con art math??????

Why, Kibo Parry Moron, do they let Gilbert Strang of MIT even write a calculus textbook, for that scatterbrain loser of mathematics, has defined Complex number on page 360, but the idiot fool of math, never thought that he should define what the hell are the numbers he is using all along????? Gilbert is not a mathematician but a backstreet con-artist of math. Why Gilbert is too dumb to even know that Calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And MIT places such a math cripple in their classrooms to cripple generations of students down the line. We need an apology by Strang in the MIT student newspaper for teaching worthless b..s. that he teaches.

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.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.

Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-2, 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 15Dec2021. 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". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

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.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 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)

>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
> On Friday, August 14, 2020 at 11:07:05 AM UTC-5, Professor Wordsmith wrote:
> > "Ammo: Uncured Shit pile"
>
> Kibo Parry Moron chimes in with--
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 12:55:10 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics
> > fails at math and science:
> >"psychoceramic" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
>
> Kibo, you stalker, is that as bad as Dr. Tao not apologizing for his conic section a ellipse when in truth it is a Oval?
>
> Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
> > On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:58:42 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
> > >
> > > Must you post garbage?
> >
> > Jan, for Dr. Tao the question really is must he teach garbage like 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and his mindless slant cut in single cone as ellipse when even a High School student can show it is a Oval.
> > Even the moron Kibo Parry Moron with his 938 is 12% short of 945 recognizes the mindless failure of math that is Dr. Terence Tao.
> >
> > On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 7:25:44 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >of Math and of Physics "spamtard"
> > >"psychoceramic"
> > >flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> >
> >
> > On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 1:13:27 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Here you are!
> > > Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
> > > sections are ellipses.
> > >
> > > Some preliminaries:
> > >
> > > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > > in the proof:
> > >
> > > ^ x
> > > |
> > > -+- < xh
> > > .' | `.
> > > . | .
> > > | | |
> > > ' | '
> > > `. | .'
> > > y <----------+ < x0
> > > Cone (side view):
> > > .
> > > /|\
> > > / | \
> > > /b | \
> > > /---+---' < x h
> > > / |' \
> > > / ' | \
> > > / ' | \
> > > x 0 > '-------+-------\
> > > / a | \
> > >
> > > Proof:
> > >
> > > r(x) a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
> > >
> > > y(x)^2 r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> > >
> > > Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> > >
> > > qed
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> > > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> > Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> > > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Andrew Wiles University Oxford needs to apologize in the Oxford student newspaper for aiding and abetting fake math taught at Oxford -- his ellipse from conic sections, his Harmonic series diverges, his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction in the error filled Boole logic, but worst of all Wiles seems to be ignorant of the fact that Calculus is geometry and thus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Andrew Wiles, publish today so no more students are brainwashed with your error filled mathematics.
> > 
> > 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > 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 
> > 
> > 

> >
> >
> > y
> > | /
> > | /
> > |/______ x
> >
> > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> >
> > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> >
> > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> >
> > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> >
> > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium