SCI.MATH FAQ, 30Jul2021// Langlands bs -> Ribet bs -> Wiles bs//Andrew Wiles fraud of math SCIENCE-- Dutch study finds 8% scientists commit fraud// psychology motivation in science when one has no abilities// No-one except AP able to do a geometry proof of Calculus.

Details of the above title are found as the first page hits in AP's pure science newsgroup-- https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe.

Speaking of the Robert Langlands failure in math which pommels into a Ribet failure which slides into Wiles failure and thus Fermat's Last Theorem failure and a peculiar psychology motivation behind all of this-- call it the complexity to nowhere.

Langlands Program was defeated by AP's discovery of the Missing Axiom of Algebra-- see his proofs in his newsgroup. In summary form the axiom states that all valid equations of mathematics have to have a positive Decimal Grid Number on the Rightside of the Equation at all times, yes, at all times. A valid math equation can never have a 0 nor a negative number all alone on the rightside of the equation, at anytime. Which is just commonsense because of a fruitstand sales person with a scale. Imagine 0 on the righthand scale and a pile of fruit on the other side. But when math is handled by kooks, they tend to let reality slip by.

This axiom then causes the entire history of Tartaglia, Cardan with they game playing of polynomials of nth degree, of finding Formula solutions and ending at the quintic, 5th degree polynomial, causing Galois to kook dream a solution. You see, the entire enterprise of Algebra went down a kook hole as they continue to play with equations of math with 0 and negative numbers on the rightside of the equation and thinking they are valid equations of math, when, they forgot one of the most important of all axioms of mathematics.

This axiom destroys the Tartaglia-Cardan game playing, destroys the Galois Group theory, destroys the Langlands Program and the offshoot Ribet theorem and the offshoot Wiles nonsense.

People in math who overlook a foundation axiom of mathematics pay the price by their total work being worthless.

But let me talk about Psychology in science, for the psychology plays a extremely important role in one's motivation for we have only one objective in science, but two other motivations outside of the truth of which are bad. The three objectives are (1) truth (2) fame (3) fortune. And so, like Wiles, he cannot understand and probably never will, that his motivation is driven not from science truth, but driven wholly for seeking fame and fortune. And there is one other psychological nemesis involved. For Truth in Science is Simplicity, not complexity and complication. When you have fake science, you need cover, and so the cover is mangled complexity so your fakery is not rejected immediately.

So in the quest for fame and fortune, but never for truth of science, the Kook of science, and we define a kook as being someone chasing fame and fortune instead of Truth. That in the quest of fame and fortune, the kook cannot be Simple, cannot be Easy, cannot be Quick to understand in their offering. No-one actually understands Wiles 150 or so pages of mangled b.s. of FLT.. No-one actually understands Langlands b.s.unless memorized b.s. such as the Youtube clip of Benedict Gross lecturing, just as I was watching a YouTube of Benedict Gross on blackboards doing the Ribet theorem b.s.-- memorized b.s.

So when kooks chase after Fame and Fortune, they cannot be simple, easy, quick in a understanding. A understanding that others can pick up in a sentence. No, their whole entire hornswaggle, their bamboozle of offering to the math community and general public, are 150 pages of mangled complex complicated b.s.. Or like Hales's computer proof of Kepler Packing is a con-art asking others to sort through a computer program. And this is called the Con-Art of science.

Compare that to say AP's proof of FLT--> here it is in a phrase, not 150 pages of b.s., not some computer outlay, but just pure simplicity that we have solutions in Pythagorean theorem all because 2+2= 2x2= 4 is a unit-basis-vector for solutions, but for exponent 3, no unit basis vector of N+N+N=NxNxN = M exists to build a solution. Everyone in the world, even High School students can understand that proof. But no-one in the world can understand a 150 pages of b.s. of Wiles, to Ribet to Langlands b.s. because it is a con-art.

So the psychology is simple also. People want fame and fortune, and abort the only path of science success-- Truth. Truth is simple, fast, immediate, understandable. Truth is never difficult, twisted, long, incomprehensible, mangled. In art we can visualize this concept by people building skyscrapers in the air, or building tall buildings that have more weight sideways that gravity cannot support, than weight up.

Truth comes with Simplicity, not complicated complexity. Yet no-one can tell a Langlands, a Ribet, a Wiles, a Hales, a Tao, that their offerings are no science but fame and fortune grubbing.

A genius of science can simplify, can find error in Old Math. A kook of science only builds more complexity that goes nowhere and causes a future genius to clean up and clean out the kooks offering.

A genius of science is not one who hands you a 150 pages of FLT, that no-one can decipher. A genius is one who can point out the simplicity of what makes a true valid equation of mathematics way back in the Renaissance time of Tartaglia and Cardan playing with polynomial formulas. A genius of science seeks only Truth, never ever considers fame or fortune. In fact, once fame and fortune come a geniuses way, his output is usually diminished 10 fold, due to all the people to people time wasted.

So a genius is not Langlands, Ribet, Wiles, Hales, Tao who can never find errors in Old Math, can never simplify math; they can only pile on more complex offerings of con-art. A genius of science reduces science to its Simple form, and in the simplicity sees through the errors made of the past. Galois theory is kook math, and so the long chain of Tartaglia, Cardan, Galois, Langlands, Ribet, Wiles is kook math. All because, their minds chased fame and fortune, not the simplicity of science, the simplicity that a fruitstand scale can never have a 0 or negative number on the righthand scale, all alone.
ntinues to hire stalkers paid for by NSF, and continues to go without a FAQ and continues to fill up the newsgroups with police drag net spam, is AP will single handedly restore a FAQ to sci.physics and sci.math, and --redirect traffic-- to the only functional sci.physics and sci.math newsgroup now available in Usenet--> the only newsgroup doing nothing but pure science--->

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

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 12:36:51 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Langlands Program was defeated by AP's discovery of the Missing Axiom of Algebra-- see his proofs in his newsgroup. In summary form the axiom states that all valid equations of mathematics have to have a positive Decimal Grid Number on the Rightside of the Equation at all times, yes, at all times. A valid math equation can never have a 0 nor a negative number all alone on the rightside of the equation, at anytime. Which is just commonsense because of a fruitstand sales person with a scale. Imagine 0 on the righthand scale and a pile of fruit on the other side. But when math is handled by kooks, they tend to let reality slip by.
>
> This axiom then causes the entire history of Tartaglia, Cardan with they game playing of polynomials of nth degree, of finding Formula solutions and ending at the quintic, 5th degree polynomial, causing Galois to kook dream a solution. You see, the entire enterprise of Algebra went down a kook hole as they continue to play with equations of math with 0 and negative numbers on the rightside of the equation and thinking they are valid equations of math, when, they forgot one of the most important of all axioms of mathematics.
>
> This axiom destroys the Tartaglia-Cardan game playing, destroys the Galois Group theory, destroys the Langlands Program and the offshoot Ribet theorem and the offshoot Wiles nonsense.
>
> People in math who overlook a foundation axiom of mathematics pay the price by their total work being worthless.
>
> But let me talk about Psychology in science, for the psychology plays a extremely important role in one's motivation for we have only one objective in science, but two other motivations outside of the truth of which are bad.. The three objectives are (1) truth (2) fame (3) fortune. And so, like Wiles, he cannot understand and probably never will, that his motivation is driven not from science truth, but driven wholly for seeking fame and fortune.. And there is one other psychological nemesis involved. For Truth in Science is Simplicity, not complexity and complication. When you have fake science, you need cover, and so the cover is mangled complexity so your fakery is not rejected immediately.
>
> So in the quest for fame and fortune, but never for truth of science, the Kook of science, and we define a kook as being someone chasing fame and fortune instead of Truth. That in the quest of fame and fortune, the kook cannot be Simple, cannot be Easy, cannot be Quick to understand in their offering. No-one actually understands Wiles 150 or so pages of mangled b.s. of FLT. No-one actually understands Langlands b.s.unless memorized b.s. such as the Youtube clip of Benedict Gross lecturing, just as I was watching a YouTube of Benedict Gross on blackboards doing the Ribet theorem b.s.-- memorized b.s.
>
> So when kooks chase after Fame and Fortune, they cannot be simple, easy, quick in a understanding. A understanding that others can pick up in a sentence. No, their whole entire hornswaggle, their bamboozle of offering to the math community and general public, are 150 pages of mangled complex complicated b.s.. Or like Hales's computer proof of Kepler Packing is a con-art asking others to sort through a computer program. And this is called the Con-Art of science.
>
> Compare that to say AP's proof of FLT--> here it is in a phrase, not 150 pages of b.s., not some computer outlay, but just pure simplicity that we have solutions in Pythagorean theorem all because 2+2= 2x2= 4 is a unit-basis-vector for solutions, but for exponent 3, no unit basis vector of N+N+N=NxNxN = M exists to build a solution. Everyone in the world, even High School students can understand that proof. But no-one in the world can understand a 150 pages of b.s. of Wiles, to Ribet to Langlands b.s. because it is a con-art.
>
> So the psychology is simple also. People want fame and fortune, and abort the only path of science success-- Truth. Truth is simple, fast, immediate, understandable. Truth is never difficult, twisted, long, incomprehensible, mangled. In art we can visualize this concept by people building skyscrapers in the air, or building tall buildings that have more weight sideways that gravity cannot support, than weight up.
>
> Truth comes with Simplicity, not complicated complexity. Yet no-one can tell a Langlands, a Ribet, a Wiles, a Hales, a Tao, that their offerings are no science but fame and fortune grubbing.
>
> A genius of science can simplify, can find error in Old Math. A kook of science only builds more complexity that goes nowhere and causes a future genius to clean up and clean out the kooks offering.
>
> A genius of science is not one who hands you a 150 pages of FLT, that no-one can decipher. A genius is one who can point out the simplicity of what makes a true valid equation of mathematics way back in the Renaissance time of Tartaglia and Cardan playing with polynomial formulas. A genius of science seeks only Truth, never ever considers fame or fortune. In fact, once fame and fortune come a geniuses way, his output is usually diminished 10 fold, due to all the people to people time wasted.
>
> So a genius is not Langlands, Ribet, Wiles, Hales, Tao who can never find errors in Old Math, can never simplify math; they can only pile on more complex offerings of con-art. A genius of science reduces science to its Simple form, and in the simplicity sees through the errors made of the past. Galois theory is kook math, and so the long chain of Tartaglia, Cardan, Galois, Langlands, Ribet, Wiles is kook math. All because, their minds chased fame and fortune, not the simplicity of science, the simplicity that a fruitstand scale can never have a 0 or negative number on the righthand scale, all alone.
> ntinues to hire stalkers paid for by NSF, and continues to go without a FAQ and continues to fill up the newsgroups with police drag net spam, is AP will single handedly restore a FAQ to sci.physics and sci.math, and --redirect traffic-- to the only functional sci.physics and sci.math newsgroup now available in Usenet--> the only newsgroup doing nothing but pure science--->

Now here is something exquisite to research in math. I am going to speak of this without looking beforehand. Which most would consider dangerous to me.. The idea is this. If AP is correct with his missing axiom, then all algebra polynomials, no matter what degree of polynomial, since there must be a positive nonzero Decimal Grid Number always alone on the rightside of the equation, that there always is just one solution. No matter the degree of polynomial. In Old Math, what they conjured up was that a 5th degree polynomial would have 5 solutions, and a 6th degree polynomial would have 6 solutions, something on the order of say 0 with three negative solutions and three positive solutions.

But if AP is correct with his missing axiom then all polynomials, no matter the degree, have just one solution.

So the way I plan to find out, is I have a old Algebra textbook and will look to see, if any of their solutions have two or more positive solutions in high degree polynomials. And if they do, why would they have two or more positive number solutions.

What I am guessing is that a polynomial such as x^5 + 4x^4 - 3x^3 +2 = 0 in Old Math had 5 solutions only because that is not a valid equation of math, nor is x^5 + 4x^4 - 3x^3 = -2 a valid equation of math with 5 solutions. However, the equation x^5 + 4x^4 - 3x^3 = 2 is a valid equation of mathematics and has, one and only one solution, not two, not three, not four, and not five solutions.

So, the reader can be excited along with me, as I check to see if my statements above are true. Because with the application of missing axiom of algebra, all valid polynomials have one and only one solution.

Mind you, I may be wrong, but my intuition leads me to that prediction, because the only FORMULA for finding solutions is trial and error of fitting the equation between two consecutive Counting Numbers and fetching out the solution. I cannot imagine the equation putting me between 4 different Counting Numbers to fetch out two solutions.

So, who is correct, AP, or Old Math?

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 1:15:14 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 12:36:51 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > Langlands Program was defeated by AP's discovery of the Missing Axiom of Algebra-- see his proofs in his newsgroup. In summary form the axiom states that all valid equations of mathematics have to have a positive Decimal Grid Number on the Rightside of the Equation at all times, yes, at all times. A valid math equation can never have a 0 nor a negative number all alone on the rightside of the equation, at anytime. Which is just commonsense because of a fruitstand sales person with a scale. Imagine 0 on the righthand scale and a pile of fruit on the other side. But when math is handled by kooks, they tend to let reality slip by.
> >
> > This axiom then causes the entire history of Tartaglia, Cardan with they game playing of polynomials of nth degree, of finding Formula solutions and ending at the quintic, 5th degree polynomial, causing Galois to kook dream a solution. You see, the entire enterprise of Algebra went down a kook hole as they continue to play with equations of math with 0 and negative numbers on the rightside of the equation and thinking they are valid equations of math, when, they forgot one of the most important of all axioms of mathematics.
> >
> > This axiom destroys the Tartaglia-Cardan game playing, destroys the Galois Group theory, destroys the Langlands Program and the offshoot Ribet theorem and the offshoot Wiles nonsense.
> >
> > People in math who overlook a foundation axiom of mathematics pay the price by their total work being worthless.
> >
> > But let me talk about Psychology in science, for the psychology plays a extremely important role in one's motivation for we have only one objective in science, but two other motivations outside of the truth of which are bad. The three objectives are (1) truth (2) fame (3) fortune. And so, like Wiles, he cannot understand and probably never will, that his motivation is driven not from science truth, but driven wholly for seeking fame and fortune. And there is one other psychological nemesis involved. For Truth in Science is Simplicity, not complexity and complication. When you have fake science, you need cover, and so the cover is mangled complexity so your fakery is not rejected immediately.
> >
> > So in the quest for fame and fortune, but never for truth of science, the Kook of science, and we define a kook as being someone chasing fame and fortune instead of Truth. That in the quest of fame and fortune, the kook cannot be Simple, cannot be Easy, cannot be Quick to understand in their offering. No-one actually understands Wiles 150 or so pages of mangled b.s. of FLT. No-one actually understands Langlands b.s.unless memorized b.s. such as the Youtube clip of Benedict Gross lecturing, just as I was watching a YouTube of Benedict Gross on blackboards doing the Ribet theorem b.s.-- memorized b.s.
> >
> > So when kooks chase after Fame and Fortune, they cannot be simple, easy, quick in a understanding. A understanding that others can pick up in a sentence. No, their whole entire hornswaggle, their bamboozle of offering to the math community and general public, are 150 pages of mangled complex complicated b.s.. Or like Hales's computer proof of Kepler Packing is a con-art asking others to sort through a computer program. And this is called the Con-Art of science.
> >
> > Compare that to say AP's proof of FLT--> here it is in a phrase, not 150 pages of b.s., not some computer outlay, but just pure simplicity that we have solutions in Pythagorean theorem all because 2+2= 2x2= 4 is a unit-basis-vector for solutions, but for exponent 3, no unit basis vector of N+N+N=NxNxN = M exists to build a solution. Everyone in the world, even High School students can understand that proof. But no-one in the world can understand a 150 pages of b.s. of Wiles, to Ribet to Langlands b.s. because it is a con-art.
> >
> > So the psychology is simple also. People want fame and fortune, and abort the only path of science success-- Truth. Truth is simple, fast, immediate, understandable. Truth is never difficult, twisted, long, incomprehensible, mangled. In art we can visualize this concept by people building skyscrapers in the air, or building tall buildings that have more weight sideways that gravity cannot support, than weight up.
> >
> > Truth comes with Simplicity, not complicated complexity. Yet no-one can tell a Langlands, a Ribet, a Wiles, a Hales, a Tao, that their offerings are no science but fame and fortune grubbing.
> >
> > A genius of science can simplify, can find error in Old Math. A kook of science only builds more complexity that goes nowhere and causes a future genius to clean up and clean out the kooks offering.
> >
> > A genius of science is not one who hands you a 150 pages of FLT, that no-one can decipher. A genius is one who can point out the simplicity of what makes a true valid equation of mathematics way back in the Renaissance time of Tartaglia and Cardan playing with polynomial formulas. A genius of science seeks only Truth, never ever considers fame or fortune. In fact, once fame and fortune come a geniuses way, his output is usually diminished 10 fold, due to all the people to people time wasted.
> >
> > So a genius is not Langlands, Ribet, Wiles, Hales, Tao who can never find errors in Old Math, can never simplify math; they can only pile on more complex offerings of con-art. A genius of science reduces science to its Simple form, and in the simplicity sees through the errors made of the past. Galois theory is kook math, and so the long chain of Tartaglia, Cardan, Galois, Langlands, Ribet, Wiles is kook math. All because, their minds chased fame and fortune, not the simplicity of science, the simplicity that a fruitstand scale can never have a 0 or negative number on the righthand scale, all alone.
> > ntinues to hire stalkers paid for by NSF, and continues to go without a FAQ and continues to fill up the newsgroups with police drag net spam, is AP will single handedly restore a FAQ to sci.physics and sci.math, and --redirect traffic-- to the only functional sci.physics and sci.math newsgroup now available in Usenet--> the only newsgroup doing nothing but pure science--->
> Now here is something exquisite to research in math. I am going to speak of this without looking beforehand. Which most would consider dangerous to me. The idea is this. If AP is correct with his missing axiom, then all algebra polynomials, no matter what degree of polynomial, since there must be a positive nonzero Decimal Grid Number always alone on the rightside of the equation, that there always is just one solution. No matter the degree of polynomial. In Old Math, what they conjured up was that a 5th degree polynomial would have 5 solutions, and a 6th degree polynomial would have 6 solutions, something on the order of say 0 with three negative solutions and three positive solutions.
>
> But if AP is correct with his missing axiom then all polynomials, no matter the degree, have just one solution.
>
> So the way I plan to find out, is I have a old Algebra textbook and will look to see, if any of their solutions have two or more positive solutions in high degree polynomials. And if they do, why would they have two or more positive number solutions.
>
> What I am guessing is that a polynomial such as x^5 + 4x^4 - 3x^3 +2 = 0 in Old Math had 5 solutions only because that is not a valid equation of math, nor is x^5 + 4x^4 - 3x^3 = -2 a valid equation of math with 5 solutions. However, the equation x^5 + 4x^4 - 3x^3 = 2 is a valid equation of mathematics and has, one and only one solution, not two, not three, not four, and not five solutions.
>
> So, the reader can be excited along with me, as I check to see if my statements above are true. Because with the application of missing axiom of algebra, all valid polynomials have one and only one solution.
>
> Mind you, I may be wrong, but my intuition leads me to that prediction, because the only FORMULA for finding solutions is trial and error of fitting the equation between two consecutive Counting Numbers and fetching out the solution. I cannot imagine the equation putting me between 4 different Counting Numbers to fetch out two solutions.
>
> So, who is correct, AP, or Old Math?
>

Alright, so, let us get going on this. I am using Stewart, Redlin, Watson, 4th ed COLLEGE ALGEBRA, 2004 and on page 338 is a interesting example of what I am after.

So they have 2x^5 +5x^4 -8x^3 -14x^2 + 6x +9 = 0

and for solutions which they call "rational zeros" are 1, 3/2, -1, and -3

Then they have on page 339 the equation of 3x^4 + 4x^3 -7x^2 -2x -3 = 0
and for solutions they have -2.3 and 1.3.

So I am a bit amiss here, for in my memory, the solutions should be the number that the exponent power is of degree. So for 5th degree we have 5 solutions but above we have only 4. And for 4th degree we have 4 solutions but above we have only 2.

Now the first equation above is an invalid equation of math for it has a 0 all alone on the rightside and if we carry the "9" over it is a -9 and that also makes it an invalid equation of math. But say we altered the first equation to be 2x^5 +5x^4 -8x^3 -14x^2 + 6x = 9 and this would be a valid equation of math. Now looking for solutions and is there one and only one solution? Yes, most definitely there is but one solution and it lies between 1 and 2. Can I see and tell why it must have just one solution? Yes, at 1 the leftside comes to -10 and at 2 the leftside comes to 36 so 9 is in between. But what about some fraction between 0 and 1? A fraction between 0 and 1 cannot surpass the hurdle of -8 and -14.

A year or more ago I had written a book on the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, with the viewpoint that this new axiom of what is and what is not a valid equation of math had a major role in shaping what FTA was.

108th published book
New Math's FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA// Math focus series, book 6
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Here is an excerpt from that book and apparently I had thought that all valid equations had at least one solution but have 2 solutions but no more. So I need to consolidate that book.

--- excerpt ---
So, my job in NEW MATH is to find what the NEW MATH FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA is. And from the information above I have to prove that every Valid Polynomial has ONE solution.

I have to prove that: Give me any valid polynomial, I have to prove it has one positive nonzero solution.

Next, I have to prove how many solutions a arbitrary valid polynomial can have. Can it have more than 2 solutions. Is there a connection to the degree of polynomial and the number of solutions.

So, now, if I had the polynomial x^3 -6x^2 + 10x = 6, does that have one and only one solution, or does it have two solutions.

My intuition tells me that say a polynomial of degree 5 or 6 or 7 etc etc, all have 1 guaranteed solution, but some may have two solutions, but none have more than two solutions. That is my intuition at the moment. There is a cap on the number of solutions being just two, and no more.

--- end excerpt ---

So apparently I ran into an example of a polynomial that had two positive number solutions for a valid equation. But my memory on this topic is really bad, so I have to go over it from top to bottom.

AP
King of Science

And, because we confine the polynomial to the 1st quadrant only, there is a likelihood of a new improved proof of FTA of at least one solution.

The idea here is that we take the x-axis as all the input, and it encompasses all numbers, all positive decimal grid numbers. And the y-axis we see as a solution number. And covering every number on the y-axis. So in my earlier example of 3x^4 + 4x^3 -7x^2 -2x = 3, the function Y -> 3x^4 + 4x^3 -7x^2 -2x passes through the point 3 on y-axis at least once. But is there a second solution?

And so if polynomials were periodic functions bobbing up and down, we could see multiple solutions. But it is easy to prove that Polynomials are not Periodic functions. And then, that would prompt us to find out-- what is the maximum periodicity of a Polynomial function? Can it bob up and down at least once? Giving rise to two solutions and two solutions at maximum?

So I need to hunt down those examples of 2 solutions.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

Alright, I am not finished with my book on Algebra of Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. And have to revise it. I am using Stewart, Redlin, Watson, 4th ed COLLEGE ALGEBRA, 2004 as template book, meaning as reference.

I spoke well of the Axiom missing in Old Math-- what is a valid equation with a positive decimal grid number always alone on the rightside of the equation at all times. This is the main axiom driving Algebra. The other axiom of you cannot subtract more than what is available, eliminates all negative numbers.

What remains to be done are these three items.

(1) Prove in 1st Quadrant only that there always exists 1 solution.
(2) Prove that some polynomials have 2 solutions, but none with 3 or more solutions.
(3) Prove that no polynomial function is periodic such as a trigonometry sine function is semicircle waves. And in this proof, show that every polynomial function graph has two branch wings and a middle area where some mountains or valleys lie. See picture.

Picture of every polynomial graph in general:

2 wings, either going up as these 2 or some going down
| |
| |
| |
____/\___/\_____
the middle zone where you have small mountains or small valleys

And those mountains or valleys always come in just 2, and not seen any of 3 or more.

The two polynomials that prove you can have two solutions in 1st Quadrant only are x^3 -6x^2 + 11x = 6 and a little tinkering x^3 -6x^2 + 10x = 6, both have just 2 solutions.

So, what I did then, starting on page 310 of Polynomial Graphing in the textbook College Algebra and going to page 351 where the pictures of graphs stops. And examining all those pictures. I conclude that all of the pictures are that general description of no more than 2 valleys in the middle region and no more than 2 small mountains in the middle region. The most peculiar one is on page 320 of P(x) = x^4(x-2)^3(x+1)2 which appears to have just 2 valleys but has some contorted shapes.

So, what I am saying is, every Polynomial equation will have at most 2 solutions. Every polynomial equation must have 1 solution. And the reason behind this is that every polynomial will have a middle region between two wings, whether up or down wings and in that middle region, only 2 valleys or 2 small mountain tops can exist.

Now why is that? What would be the mechanism? And I suspect the mechanism is the interplay between the subtraction and the addition creates one, while the interplay of exponents creates the other, the one valley and the other valley if it has 2 valleys, (or small mountains).

Now there is a curious polynomial on page 321 of P(x) = 7x^4+3x^2 -10x which seems to have a middle region as just one valley. So here we have to ask the question first, is it a valid equation of math? We have nothing to put on the right side of the equation except perhaps 0. And 0 makes for a invalid equation.

So what if I placed 1 on the rightside to have this 7x^4+3x^2 -10x = 1.

Values
x Y
1 0
1.1 approx 2.81 =/= 1

So, unlike Old Math where they could roam 4 Quadrants we have only 1st Quadrant only and that means many of these polynomials will be truncated in half and have just one solution.

Those that can be fully expressed as two branch wings can have 2 solutions at most.

But the proofs is what is required.

And I may have to put the proofs off for a time being, as I am more concerned in finishing TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

Alright, I am not finished with my book on Algebra of Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. And have to revise it. I am using Stewart, Redlin, Watson, 4th ed COLLEGE ALGEBRA, 2004 as template book, meaning as reference.

I spoke well of the Axiom missing in Old Math-- what is a valid equation with a positive decimal grid number always alone on the rightside of the equation at all times. This is the main axiom driving Algebra. The other axiom of you cannot subtract more than what is available, eliminates all negative numbers.

What remains to be done are these three items.

(1) Prove in 1st Quadrant only that there always exists 1 solution.
(2) Prove that some polynomials have 2 solutions, but none with 3 or more solutions.
(3) Prove that no polynomial function is periodic such as a trigonometry sine function is semicircle waves. And in this proof, show that every polynomial function graph has two branch wings and a middle area where some mountains or valleys lie. See picture.

Picture of every polynomial graph in general (special note, in general but some are half cut-aways):

2 wings, either going up as these 2 or some going down
| |
| |
| |
____/\___/\_____
the middle zone where you have small mountains or small valleys

And those mountains or valleys always come in just 2, unless a cutaway, and not seen any of 3 or more.

The two polynomials that prove you can have two solutions in 1st Quadrant only are x^3 -6x^2 + 11x = 6 and a little tinkering x^3 -6x^2 + 10x = 6, both have just 2 solutions.

So, what I did then, starting on page 310 of Polynomial Graphing in the textbook College Algebra and going to page 351 where the pictures of graphs stops. And examining all those pictures. I conclude that all of the pictures are that general description of no more than 2 valleys in the middle region and no more than 2 small mountains in the middle region. The most peculiar one is on page 320 of P(x) = x^4(x-2)^3(x+1)2 which appears to have just 2 valleys but has some contorted shapes.

So, what I am saying is, every Polynomial equation will have at most 2 solutions. Every polynomial equation must have 1 solution. And the reason behind this is that every polynomial will have a middle region between two wings unless a cut-away, whether up or down wings and in that middle region, only 2 valleys or 2 small mountain tops can exist.

Now why is that? What would be the mechanism? And I suspect the mechanism is the interplay between the subtraction and the addition creates one, while the interplay of exponents creates the other, the one valley and the other valley if it has 2 valleys, (or small mountains).

Now there is a curious polynomial on page 321 of P(x) = 7x^4+3x^2 -10x which seems to have a middle region as just one valley. This is an example of a cut-away with only 1 wing. So here we have to ask the question first, is it a valid equation of math? We have nothing to put on the right side of the equation except perhaps 0. And 0 makes for a invalid equation.

So what if I placed 1 on the rightside to have this 7x^4+3x^2 -10x = 1.

Values
x Y
1 0
1.1 approx 2.81 =/= 1

So, unlike Old Math where they could roam 4 Quadrants we have only 1st Quadrant only and that means many of these polynomials will be truncated in half and have just one solution.

Those that can be fully expressed as two branch wings can have 2 solutions at most.

But the proofs is what is required.

A few things to remember:
(1) We can easily scoot these graphs of all 4 quadrants, scoot them into 1st quadrant only and it would represent a actual different polynomial that already exists, represent it precisely.
(2) I have not taken into account the idea that the solutions of Old Math polynomials with a negative number on rightside all alone and how that affects solutions, compared to having a 0 all alone on rightside. Of course, they are invalid math equations, but they need analysis. If for no other reason than to tell us how they err math. Or, possibly be scooted into 1st Quadrant only and represent a actual valid equation.

And I may have to put the proofs off for a time being, as I am more concerned in finishing TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 10:02:02 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> What remains to be done are these three items.

> (2) Prove that some polynomials have 2 solutions, but none with 3 or more solutions.

polynomial on left side, positive number on right side and three solutions for x>0, x=1, x=2, x=3
x^3-6x^2+11x = 6

> And those mountains or valleys always come in just 2, and not seen any of 3 or more.

polynomial on the left side, positive number of the right side with a peak and a valley and a peak and a valley
274*x - 225*x^2 + 85*x^3 - 15*x^4 + x^5 = 120

> The two polynomials that prove you can have two solutions in 1st Quadrant only are x^3 -6x^2 + 11x = 6 and a little tinkering x^3 -6x^2 + 10x = 6, both have just 2 solutions.

x^3-6x^2+11x=6 has three solutions, x=1 and x=2 and x=3

x^3 -6x^2 + 10x = 6 has three solutions
x == 3.7692923542386314 and
x == 1.1153538228806843 + 0.5897428050222058*sqrt(-1) and
x == 1.1153538228806843 - 0.5897428050222058*sqrt(-1)
But you don't believe in complex numbers so in your world it only has one solution

> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics

You are a deeply deeply mentally ill crank Archie.
I realize that you desperately have to imagine your life has any meaning and that you are the greatest in the world.
But you haven't been able to accomplish a single thing in your entire lifetime that is outside your mental illness.

🦠 of Math and 🧫 of Physics Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>
> The other axiom of you cannot subtract more than what is available, eliminates all negative numbers.

Hey Mitch! ArchiePoo is stealing you Nobel Prize worthy idea about
subtraction and negative numbers!
>
>
> AP
> Court Jester of Science, especially Physics
>

On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 1:00:57 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 10:02:02 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > What remains to be done are these three items.
> > (2) Prove that some polynomials have 2 solutions, but none with 3 or more solutions.
> polynomial on left side, positive number on right side and three solutions for x>0, x=1, x=2, x=3
> x^3-6x^2+11x = 6

Even though bwr is depressed, he still can do some good posts.

Now, I have to up the ante, there exists no Polynomial with 4 positive number solutions.

So, bwr, I call you and raise you 10.

> > And those mountains or valleys always come in just 2, and not seen any of 3 or more.
> polynomial on the left side, positive number of the right side with a peak and a valley and a peak and a valley
> 274*x - 225*x^2 + 85*x^3 - 15*x^4 + x^5 = 120
> > The two polynomials that prove you can have two solutions in 1st Quadrant only are x^3 -6x^2 + 11x = 6 and a little tinkering x^3 -6x^2 + 10x = 6, both have just 2 solutions.
> x^3-6x^2+11x=6 has three solutions, x=1 and x=2 and x=3
>
> x^3 -6x^2 + 10x = 6 has three solutions
> x == 3.7692923542386314 and
> x == 1.1153538228806843 + 0.5897428050222058*sqrt(-1) and
> x == 1.1153538228806843 - 0.5897428050222058*sqrt(-1)
> But you don't believe in complex numbers so in your world it only has one solution

Yes, only one solution there.

But can you find any polynomial with 4 solutions, or is that beyond your paygrade.

> > AP
> > King of Science, especially Physics
> You are a deeply deeply mentally ill crank Archie.

Don't put yourself down so hard, you are worth at least a cup of coffee, now, relax, even cream in it.

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 11:10:39 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 1:00:57 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 10:02:02 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > What remains to be done are these three items.
> > > (2) Prove that some polynomials have 2 solutions, but none with 3 or more solutions.
> > polynomial on left side, positive number on right side and three solutions for x>0, x=1, x=2, x=3
> > x^3-6x^2+11x = 6
> Even though bwr is depressed, he still can do some good posts.
>
> Now, I have to up the ante, there exists no Polynomial with 4 positive number solutions.
>
> So, bwr, I call you and raise you 10.

50*x - 35*x^2 + 10*x^3 - x^4 = 24 has four solutions x=1, x=2, x=3, x=4

> > > And those mountains or valleys always come in just 2, and not seen any of 3 or more.
> > polynomial on the left side, positive number of the right side with a peak and a valley and a peak and a valley
> > 274*x - 225*x^2 + 85*x^3 - 15*x^4 + x^5 = 120
> > > The two polynomials that prove you can have two solutions in 1st Quadrant only are x^3 -6x^2 + 11x = 6 and a little tinkering x^3 -6x^2 + 10x = 6, both have just 2 solutions.
> > x^3-6x^2+11x=6 has three solutions, x=1 and x=2 and x=3
> >
> > x^3 -6x^2 + 10x = 6 has three solutions
> > x == 3.7692923542386314 and
> > x == 1.1153538228806843 + 0.5897428050222058*sqrt(-1) and
> > x == 1.1153538228806843 - 0.5897428050222058*sqrt(-1)
> > But you don't believe in complex numbers so in your world it only has one solution
> Yes, only one solution there.
>
> But can you find any polynomial with 4 solutions, or is that beyond your paygrade.
> > > AP
> > > King of Science, especially Physics
> > You are a deeply deeply mentally ill crank Archie.
> Don't put yourself down so hard, you are worth at least a cup of coffee, now, relax, even cream in it.

Retarded, Retarded, Archie is Retarded
Come on Archie, sing it with me
Retarded, Retarded, Archie is Retarded

On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 1:18:14 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 11:10:39 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 1:00:57 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 10:02:02 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > What remains to be done are these three items.
> > > > (2) Prove that some polynomials have 2 solutions, but none with 3 or more solutions.
> > > polynomial on left side, positive number on right side and three solutions for x>0, x=1, x=2, x=3
> > > x^3-6x^2+11x = 6
> > Even though bwr is depressed, he still can do some good posts.
> >
> > Now, I have to up the ante, there exists no Polynomial with 4 positive number solutions.
> >
> > So, bwr, I call you and raise you 10.
> 50*x - 35*x^2 + 10*x^3 - x^4 = 24 has four solutions x=1, x=2, x=3, x=4

Call you and raise you 1,000.

For looking at page 341 of College Algebra with graph of P(x) 2x^4 -9x^3 +9x^2 + x = 3.

So we scoot that entire graph to be inside of the first quadrant only. It has 2 valleys and 1 mountain top. So we draw a line parallel to x-axis and a solution set will be intersected of 4 solutions maximum.

There cannot be a 5th solution.

So BWR, call you and raise you 1,000. Are you still in the game?

If true, it is some reflection of the quintic, in some means I am not seeing at the moment.

And that would, if true, reduce all the quintic fuss and fury from Tartaglia, Cardan to Galois, reduce the quintic to the idea that polynomials have at most 4 intersection points of their middle region of 2 valleys and 1 mountain top.

BWR, do you have a polynomial, all 5 solutions as positive Decimal Grid numbers. I dare say, you will be quiet.

AP

On 7/31/2021 2:29 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 11:10:39 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>>>> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 10:02:02 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>>>>> (2) Prove that some polynomials have 2 solutions, but none with 3 or more solutions.
>>>
>>> Now, I have to up the ante, there exists no Polynomial with 4 positive number solutions.
>>>
> There cannot be a 5th solution.
>
> So BWR, call you and raise you 1,000. Are you still in the game?

Are you just going to play this absurd "So you found N solutions. I bet
you can't find N+1 solutions!" for increasing N until bwr gives up?

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 11:29:09 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Call you and raise you 1,000.
>
> For looking at page 341 of College Algebra with graph of P(x) 2x^4 -9x^3 +9x^2 + x = 3.
>
> So we scoot that entire graph to be inside of the first quadrant only. It has 2 valleys and 1 mountain top. So we draw a line parallel to x-axis and a solution set will be intersected of 4 solutions maximum.
>
> There cannot be a 5th solution.

Fine. A quartic polynomial has four roots, not necessarily distinct and not necessarily real, but all of the rest of us know it has four roots.

> So BWR, call you and raise you 1,000. Are you still in the game?
>
> If true, it is some reflection of the quintic, in some means I am not seeing at the moment.
>
> And that would, if true, reduce all the quintic fuss and fury from Tartaglia, Cardan to Galois, reduce the quintic to the idea that polynomials have at most 4 intersection points of their middle region of 2 valleys and 1 mountain top.

I have absolutely no idea what you are crank ranting about in the last six lines. You showed a quartic and somehow you think that has something to do with a quintic.

> BWR, do you have a polynomial, all 5 solutions as positive Decimal Grid numbers. I dare say, you will be quiet.

274*x - 225*x^2 + 85*x^3 - 15*x^4 + x^5 = 120

has five roots, x=1,x=2,x=3,x=4,x=5

And that proves absolutely nothing about your imagined refutation of anything Archie.

Is there any chance in the world, before you are dead, that you could come up with a single new correct thing, anything that doesn't depend on your crank beliefs?

> AP

Retarded, retarded, Archie is retarded

On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 1:46:32 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 11:29:09 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Call you and raise you 1,000.
> >
> > For looking at page 341 of College Algebra with graph of P(x) 2x^4 -9x^3 +9x^2 + x = 3.
> >
> > So we scoot that entire graph to be inside of the first quadrant only. It has 2 valleys and 1 mountain top. So we draw a line parallel to x-axis and a solution set will be intersected of 4 solutions maximum.
> >
> > There cannot be a 5th solution.
> Fine. A quartic polynomial has four roots, not necessarily distinct and not necessarily real, but all of the rest of us know it has four roots.
> > So BWR, call you and raise you 1,000. Are you still in the game?
> >
> > If true, it is some reflection of the quintic, in some means I am not seeing at the moment.
> >
> > And that would, if true, reduce all the quintic fuss and fury from Tartaglia, Cardan to Galois, reduce the quintic to the idea that polynomials have at most 4 intersection points of their middle region of 2 valleys and 1 mountain top.
> I have absolutely no idea what you are crank ranting about in the last six lines. You showed a quartic and somehow you think that has something to do with a quintic.
> > BWR, do you have a polynomial, all 5 solutions as positive Decimal Grid numbers. I dare say, you will be quiet.

> x^3-6x^2+11x=6 has three solutions, x=1 and x=2 and x=3

>50*x - 35*x^2 + 10*x^3 - x^4 = 24 has four solutions x=1, x=2, x=3, x=4

> 274*x - 225*x^2 + 85*x^3 - 15*x^4 + x^5 = 120
> has five roots, x=1,x=2,x=3,x=4,x=5
>

BWR-- what is the formula for those polynomials, obviously the end number is 5 factorial, but what is the formula for the 274, the 225, the 85, the 15 and the 1.

Thanks, I needed to brush up on how to form polynomials given the solutions in advance.

And here I develop a Geometry theory of why the Quintic stops in Formulas.

So that Tartaglia to Cardano to Ferrari et al leading up to Galois math, is not wasted, but seen rather as a Scooting up of polynomial graphs , scooting them up from all 4 quadrants and into 1st Quadrant Only. And replacing a Polynomial that already exists in 1st Quadrant Only. But in the replacement, the numbers allow for only a replacement in 4th power, it is stuck in replacement in 5th power.

What I am doing is making a geometry model of the Quintic of Algebra. We cannot scoot 274*x - 225*x^2 + 85*x^3 - 15*x^4 + x^5 that is lying in all 4 quadrants scoot it into 1st quadrant only and replace a polynomial preexisting in 1st quadrant only.

We can scoot 50*x - 35*x^2 + 10*x^3 - x^4 lying in all 4 quadrants up into the 1st quadrant only and replace a preexisting polynomial there.

P.S. I would bet that BWR is Konyberg in Norway for his algebra matches, along with his acid backtalk depression.

AP, your King of Science, especially Physics and where math is but a appetizer.

On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 12:15:29 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 274*x - 225*x^2 + 85*x^3 - 15*x^4 + x^5 = 120
> > has five roots, x=1,x=2,x=3,x=4,x=5
>
> BWR-- what is the formula for those polynomials, obviously the end number is 5 factorial, but what is the formula for the 274, the 225, the 85, the 15 and the 1.

The self imagined king would know how to this and far more

> Thanks, I needed to brush up on how to form polynomials given the solutions in advance.

Go get yourself a book in basic algebra and learn what you must have known a lifetime ago and your mental illness has taken from you.

> And here I develop a Geometry theory of why the Quintic stops in Formulas..
>
> So that Tartaglia to Cardano to Ferrari et al leading up to Galois math, is not wasted, but seen rather as a Scooting up of polynomial graphs , scooting them up from all 4 quadrants and into 1st Quadrant Only. And replacing a Polynomial that already exists in 1st Quadrant Only. But in the replacement, the numbers allow for only a replacement in 4th power, it is stuck in replacement in 5th power.
>
> What I am doing is making a geometry model of the Quintic of Algebra. We cannot scoot 274*x - 225*x^2 + 85*x^3 - 15*x^4 + x^5 that is lying in all 4 quadrants scoot it into 1st quadrant only and replace a polynomial preexisting in 1st quadrant only.
>
> We can scoot 50*x - 35*x^2 + 10*x^3 - x^4 lying in all 4 quadrants up into the 1st quadrant only and replace a preexisting polynomial there.

How can you "scoot" any polynomial to lie in the first quadrant only? "Scoot" 3x into the first quadrant only. "Scoot" x^3 into the first quadrant only.

How can you imagine you are refuting Galois, let alone anything else? You have never been able to convince anyone that anything you have ever done is more than just delusion.

Polynomials are defined over x from -infinity to infinity and no amount of "scooting", whatever that is, will push all that into the first quadrant.

Some polynomials might have a minimum and you could "scoot" that up to y=0, but many polynomials are defined over y from -infinity to infinity and no amount of "scooting" will push all that into the first quadrant.

> P.S. I would bet that BWR is Konyberg in Norway for his algebra matches, along with his acid backtalk depression.

Let's bet Archie. How much money are we talking? Enough to seriously hurt you at a minimum. And how are we going to conclusively settle this bet?

> AP, your self imagined King of mental illness, especially Physics and where math is but one of your lifetime of failure.

Find something, find anything, that you can do and which will convince any competent qualified mathematician that you are anything more than a mentally ill crank.

Come on Archie, Sing it with me.
Retarded, Retarded, Archie is Retarded.

Alright I need to reframe the problem, instead of calling them valleys and mountain tops and wings. Let us replace that geometry with replacement of straightline segment.

Alright a 5th degree polynomial has 5 up and down curve segments replaced by 5 straightline segments and as we run a x-axis line through those 5 line segments we retrieve at most 5 solutions as intersections.

Alright a 6th degree polynomial has 6 straight lines for replacement and as we intersect with the x-axis we can have at maximum 6 solutions.

A 7th degree polynomial has 7 straightline segment replacement hence 7 solutions.

I did this with a Google search of "images 5th degree polynomial" etc.

Now as for the equations
-x^2 + 3x = 2 has solutions 1, 2 And we can consider this equation as we do line slopes some running / this way in Y= mx+b and some running this way \ as in b -mx.

x^3 -6x^2 +11x = 6
has three solutions, x=1 and x=2 and x=3

-x^4 + 10x^3 - 35x^2 + 50x = 24
has four solutions x=1, x=2, x=3, x=4

x^5 - 15x^4 + 85x^3 - 225x^2 + 274x = 120
has five roots, x=1,x=2,x=3,x=4,x=5

Now with 3rd and 5th and 7th degree polynomials the side wings, one is up and the other is down. With 2nd, 4th, 6th degree both wings are up.

Alright, getting back to basics. I first started with the axiom of what is a valid equation and what is not a valid equation. A valid equation has a positive decimal grid number on the rightside of equal sign at all times, never a zero and never a negative number.

I then said, that because the there is a positive number on the rightside of equation there be only one solution for the polynomial. I was found wrong.. Then I said there are 2 and no more solutions, and that turned out wrong.

Now we see there are as many solutions as desired for certain manufactured polynomials.

So AP has to discover a new means of founding the solution set of Polynomials. And we know the solution set cannot exceed the number degree of the polynomial. So for a 7th degree, there are 7 maximum solutions of positive decimal grid numbers. And that matches the idea that the graph of the polynomial is replaced by 7 straight line segments going up and down, two as the end wings and then 5 in the middle region.

Now as a technique for finding these solutions we breakdown the lonely positive number on the rightside of equation into the reverse factorial. So for instance, we find a 132 on the rightside we break that down into 1.1*2*3*4*5 and find our solution set between those. Say the number on right side is 180, then our solution set is between 1.5*2*3*4*5. And look for numbers in that range.

Now, as for the question of Galois theory and quintic resolution. I do not believe my New Math Algebra can help Galois. Galois uses fake numbers and does not avail himself of the Axiom of valid equations. So there is no hope for the Tartaglia, Cardano, Ferrari, et al, Galois programs. They were absent of the true numbers of math and the guiding true axioms of math.

But I shall continue with the analysis of those graphs of the polynomials.

Polynomials are so important to mathematics, they are the building blocks of Calculus, and so no time is wasted in studying polynomials.

AP
King of Science

On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 2:54:34 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 12:15:29 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > 274*x - 225*x^2 + 85*x^3 - 15*x^4 + x^5 = 120
> > > has five roots, x=1,x=2,x=3,x=4,x=5
> >
> > BWR-- what is the formula for those polynomials, obviously the end number is 5 factorial, but what is the formula for the 274, the 225, the 85, the 15 and the 1.
> The self imagined king would know how to this and far more
> > Thanks, I needed to brush up on how to form polynomials given the solutions in advance.
> Go get yourself a book in basic algebra and learn what you must have known a lifetime ago and your mental illness has taken from you.
> > And here I develop a Geometry theory of why the Quintic stops in Formulas.
> >
> > So that Tartaglia to Cardano to Ferrari et al leading up to Galois math, is not wasted, but seen rather as a Scooting up of polynomial graphs , scooting them up from all 4 quadrants and into 1st Quadrant Only. And replacing a Polynomial that already exists in 1st Quadrant Only. But in the replacement, the numbers allow for only a replacement in 4th power, it is stuck in replacement in 5th power.
> >
> > What I am doing is making a geometry model of the Quintic of Algebra. We cannot scoot 274*x - 225*x^2 + 85*x^3 - 15*x^4 + x^5 that is lying in all 4 quadrants scoot it into 1st quadrant only and replace a polynomial preexisting in 1st quadrant only.
> >
> > We can scoot 50*x - 35*x^2 + 10*x^3 - x^4 lying in all 4 quadrants up into the 1st quadrant only and replace a preexisting polynomial there.
> How can you "scoot" any polynomial to lie in the first quadrant only? "Scoot" 3x into the first quadrant only. "Scoot" x^3 into the first quadrant only.
>
> How can you imagine you are refuting Galois, let alone anything else? You have never been able to convince anyone that anything you have ever done is more than just delusion.
>
> Polynomials are defined over x from -infinity to infinity and no amount of "scooting", whatever that is, will push all that into the first quadrant.
>
> Some polynomials might have a minimum and you could "scoot" that up to y=0, but many polynomials are defined over y from -infinity to infinity and no amount of "scooting" will push all that into the first quadrant.
> > P.S. I would bet that BWR is Konyberg in Norway for his algebra matches, along with his acid backtalk depression.
> Let's bet Archie. How much money are we talking? Enough to seriously hurt you at a minimum. And how are we going to conclusively settle this bet?
>
> > AP, your self imagined King of mental illness, especially Physics and where math is but one of your lifetime of failure.
>
> Find something, find anything, that you can do and which will convince any competent qualified mathematician that you are anything more than a mentally ill crank.
>
> Come on Archie, Sing it with me.
> Retarded, Retarded, Archie is Retarded.

Tell me BWR, do you eat your newborn young? Is that a symptom of a psychotic I was unaware of?

Archimedes Plutonium, on his way to fame, consumes large
amounts of ball pens and grid paper. The charity organization
that has provided them is puzzled and needs to organize

new supply from south argentina. But Archimedes Plutonium
is close to completion of his opus magnum. It is to expect
that he will solve the squaring of the grid plane. He is only

a hair away of showing, that thanks to the infinity border,
the quadrant reduction transformation q : x -> |x|, preserves
continuity of a function. Its a very contrived theorem,

a corollary of the atom total theory. The whole world is holding
his breath now, in joyful expectation of this miracle.

Archimedes Plutonium schrieb:
>> Come on Archie, Sing it with me.
>> Retarded, Retarded, Archie is Retarded.
>
> Tell me BWR, do you eat your newborn young > Is that a symptom of a psychotic I was unaware of?

Alright, I am ready for a revision of my book on Fundamental Theorem of Algebra.

And looks like the only real important new item is a proof that at least one solution exists for every polynomial. I will do a Geometry proof of that, arguing that the graph of the polynomial covers every x-axis number and covers every y-axis number. College Algebra, Stewart, Redlin, Watson 4th ed, 2004 shows the general graph of a polynomial on page 311. Showing what is a polynomial graph and what is not. So my argument in the proof follows a geometry argument that whatever the rightside positive grid number happens to be, say it is 1001, then we go up the y-axis of that polynomial until we reach 1001 and then go over parallel to the x-axis and intersect at least one point. We are guaranteed at least one point intersection because as Stewart, Redlin, Watson state-- "Graph of polynomial function is smooth and continuous" which in New Math means smooth and all encompassing of every grid number in a Grid system since numbers are not continuous. And this is also proven by the definition of a function in that each and every x-number corresponds a unique y-number.

Now looking in the book College Algebra, they actually do not offer a proof of FTA, just talk about it. And I am guessing the reason no proof is given, is not that it is hard or difficult, but that the only reasonable proof is a geometry proof. It is stated on page 349 that Gauss proved FTA, but I doubt it, for he had no geometry proof. The same can be said of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all saying a "limit analysis" was a proof, when in fact it was a hornswaggle con-art. Calculus is geometry and there is no proof of FTC unless it is a geometrical proof.

But I am happy to say that on pages 249 and 251, the authors of College Algebra talk about Horizontal Shifting and Vertical Shifting and Stretching and Shrinking. This is what I called Scooting. For scooting graphs of polynomials in 4 quadrants, scooting them over to be confined all in 1st Quadrant Only and thus replace a polynomial that already exists a priori in that place and position. Or, if you like, stretch the 1st quadrant until it engulfs the other quadrants and the polynomial graph.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

Archimedes Plutonium denies using q : x -> |x|. He reports
to the Dartmouth chronicles that he uses only plain old
tobogganing. Means his mapping will be q : x -> a*x+b,

where b is the flutter and a is the blotter. He says he
got already good results for polynomials. But is having
some problems with sinus for example. But he is very

optimistic about his breakthrough.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 31. Juli 2021 um 11:26:30 UTC+2:
> Archimedes Plutonium, on his way to fame, consumes large
> amounts of ball pens and grid paper. The charity organization
> that has provided them is puzzled and needs to organize
>
> new supply from south argentina. But Archimedes Plutonium
> is close to completion of his opus magnum. It is to expect
> that he will solve the squaring of the grid plane. He is only
>
> a hair away of showing, that thanks to the infinity border,
> the quadrant reduction transformation q : x -> |x|, preserves
> continuity of a function. Its a very contrived theorem,
>
> a corollary of the atom total theory. The whole world is holding
> his breath now, in joyful expectation of this miracle.
>
> Archimedes Plutonium schrieb:
> >> Come on Archie, Sing it with me.
> >> Retarded, Retarded, Archie is Retarded.
> >
> > Tell me BWR, do you eat your newborn young > Is that a symptom of a psychotic I was unaware of?

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> Archimedes Plutonium denies using q : x -> |x|. He reports to the
> Dartmouth chronicles that he uses only plain old tobogganing. Means his
> mapping will be q : x -> a*x+b,

You never learn. The deadly "covid" is in the vaccines. Your country is a
shithole. If the mask suffocators are mandated, how do you know they are
not gay lovers? It makes no sense having masks on for gay lovers, and I
guess illegal too.

Planetwide Bombshell: Countries With Over 90% Vaccinated Have Highest
Covid Rates.

Former Pfizer Employee Confirms Toxin in Covid Injection - Graphene Oxide
Nanotechnology.

Biden So FAR GONE He Has to Ask his Handlers if It’s OK to Leave.

Biden Says US Should Expect NEW COVID RESTRICTIONS, CDC Study Reveals 74%
of Infected Are Vaccinated.

Archimedes Plutonium objected on the sinus example, that he
is currently focused on polynomials only. He said polynomials
are what true mathematics is about. Mathematics has never

dealt with trigonometrics except by a few insane people. He pointed
to his own kitchen table theorem, that states that ellipses are
always oval. And also into his forray into the sinus function that

show that the sinus is actually only half circles. So his
squaring of the grid paper will ultimately show how every
half circle is a polynomial inside the infinity border. This then

translates to sinus, which is the beginning of true mathematics
that not only spans algebra but also analysis. The area of true
mathematics that begun 1994 with the discovery of his atom totality.

Brunhilde Toneelknecht schrieb am Samstag, 31. Juli 2021 um 13:00:51 UTC+2:
> Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> > Archimedes Plutonium denies using q : x -> |x|. He reports to the
> > Dartmouth chronicles that he uses only plain old tobogganing. Means his
> > mapping will be q : x -> a*x+b,
> You never learn. The deadly "covid" is in the vaccines. Your country is a
> shithole. If the mask suffocators are mandated, how do you know they are
> not gay lovers? It makes no sense having masks on for gay lovers, and I
> guess illegal too.
>
> Planetwide Bombshell: Countries With Over 90% Vaccinated Have Highest
> Covid Rates.
>
> Former Pfizer Employee Confirms Toxin in Covid Injection - Graphene Oxide
> Nanotechnology.
>
> Biden So FAR GONE He Has to Ask his Handlers if It’s OK to Leave.
>
> Biden Says US Should Expect NEW COVID RESTRICTIONS, CDC Study Reveals 74%
> of Infected Are Vaccinated.

World's first proof of Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, a geometry proof Re: Fermat status.

SCI.MATH FAQ, 31Jul2021// Fundamental Theorem of Algebra//Andrew Wiles fraud of math SCIENCE-- Dutch study finds 8% scientists commit fraud// psychology motivation in science when one has no abilities// No-one except AP able to do a geometry proof of Calculus.

I have a textbook as reference of College Algebra, 2004, 4th ed, Stewart, Redlin, Watson, and they provide no proof of FTA. Looking in Wikipedia, and they state that there is no pure algebra proof of FTA and involve some analysis & topology.

--- quoting Wikipedia on FTA ---
Despite its name, there is no purely algebraic proof of the theorem, since any proof must use some form of the analytic completeness of the real numbers, which is not an algebraic concept. Additionally, it is not fundamental for modern algebra; its name was given at a time when algebra was synonymous with theory of equations.
--- end quote ---

This is the same sad situation in Calculus where no geometry proof was ever given, only a hornswaggle of a limit analysis. And mathematicians should be ashamed of themselves for leading everyone on that these theorems had proofs when actually they had nothing. So it looks as though AP will provide the world's first proof of Fundamental Theorem of Algebra also.

Details of the above title are found as the first page hits in AP's pure science newsgroup-- https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe.

Yes, almost forgot, I did ask for the formula of solutions for manufactured polynomials of given solutions.

So for 6 positive numbers solutions of a 6th degree polynomial would go like this.

(x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-4)(x-5)(x-6) and have a 720 all alone on the right side of the equation at all times.

But because the 720 in manufacture is a positive on the leftside, it has to be turned around as negative, forcing the x^6 as a negative signed term. With odd-number degree polynomials the number is already negative signed and so the 120 in 5th degree polynomial needs not change the signage.

But this leads me back to the question of what are solutions to any given polynomial. Say we are given a 6th degree polynomial whose rightside is 800 instead of 720. Can we instantly spot what integers we should trial and error for solutions it has from factors of 800?

Suppose we are given x^6 +10x^5 - 4x^4 - 3x^3 + 2x^2 - x = 800

Suppose given that polynomial, can we instantly look for solutions between this and that integers?

Off the top of my head I would suggest x=3 is a good starting point. Some number between 2 and 3 and 4. For 3^6 = 729 and 3^5 = 243.

Of course we can do what Old Math Algebra did, try to factor the equation. But I would like a instant solution find of at least one solution found very fast.

AP
King of Science