Andrew Wiles, there is a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the most important math work of the past 4 centuries, and you totally missed the boat on it. In fact you probably never even saw it, for probably your dim mind in math never realized that Calculus was geometry and therefore needed and required a geometry proof. A mind can be dimmed when it is in fanatic mode of seeking fame and fortune on Fermat's Last Theorem. But with a dim mind as yours in math, once you heard about a geometry proof of FTC, you chose to run and hide, and run and hide has been your trademark ever since. Andrew, your dim mind in math, thought a "limit analysis hornswaggle" is all that Calculus ever needed. But no, Calculus needed a full precise geometry proof so as to make calculus and all of math easy, simple and easy. Make math a easier science than even is the science of biology or geology or astronomy. The only reason math is so hard and difficult is because of fellows like you Andrew in math who pile on more b.s. con-art fakery unto the dung heap of mathematics. And fellows like you never understand, that your job is not fame and fortune, but to make math easy and easier.

This is why it was important for your generation of mathematicians to do a precise and valid FTC, because it cleans out many of the biggest mistakes of Old Math, gives mathematics a thorough scrub down and washing. Throws out of math the continuum, throws out the functions that are not polynomials, throws out the equations of math that have not a positive decimal grid number always on the rightside of the equation alone at all times. Throws out the Reals, the Irrationals, the Rationals, and leaves the only true numbers of mathematics-- the decimal Grid Numbers. Throws out trigonometry from calculus, unless converted to a polynomial over an interval first.

You see Andrew, making math easy, fun, clear, is foreign to your mentality, a mentality driven only by fame and fortune and not the truth of math or science.

So you see Andrew, you made no worthwhile contribution to math or math history, instead you piled on more b.s. added another fakery piece of math, your Fermat's Last Theorem, which now will take the time of a true mathematician only has to work more, to get your FLT thrown out onto that trash pile of fake math.

A true mathematician does not seek glory, fame and fortune, and that is all you did in math, Andrew, seek fame and fortune for never the truth. You continue to run and hide.

When I asked you why you missed spotting the flaw and error of Euler's exponent 3 alleged proof, that Euler never proved for all three A,B,C evens are not a solution in A^3 + B^3 = C^3, what did you do Andrew? Run and hide.

When I asked you that Algebras of elliptic curves had no connection with being a substitute or replacement of Naturals. And that the entire Ribet Theorem and the Langlands program was con-art fake, because, they never had the axiom of algebra-- a valid equation of math can never have a 0 or negative number all alone on the rightside of the equation. What did you do Andrew-- run and hide.

Your running and hiding is not the sign of a accomplished mathematician or a scientist in fact. Your running and hiding are signs you are a fraud and con-artist Andrew. And SCIENCE magazine recently reported a Dutch study that 8% of scientists commit fraud.

Andrew, your running and hiding rather than engaging in serious questions of shortfalls in your math, imply you committed Fraud, Andrew.

Why can you not do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, Andrew, is it way to hard for you? Do you think a "limit analysis hornswaggle" is a geometry proof? You know calculus is geometry, but your failed mind in math cannot summon a geometry proof.

Worse yet, Andrew you still use the discredited Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, because a failure of logic like you, Andrew, cannot see mistakes or errors, that Boole switched the true AND truth table of TTTF with that of TFFF, and covering up in the mindless Either Or Or Both. Why did you not catch the Boole mistake before making your ridiculous FLT alleged proof, your 150 pages of incomprehensible tortured garbage argument, where you were so blind in not even recognizing Euler had no proof of FLT in exponent 3. But there, you go running off thinking you proved all of FLT..

Someone that wants to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, Andrew, is not a mathematician who cannot see the mistakes and errors of the past mathematics, not like you Andrew that missed Euler's mistake, missed the oval of conics, missed a geometry proof of calculus, missed knowing what constitutes a true equation of math, missed the idea that since Quantum Mechanics in Physics had thrown out the continuum and replaced it with discrete quantized quantities, that dumb Andrew Wiles keeps on keeping on with continuum.

Is there anything in math with mistakes that you did not miss, Andrew?

Andrew, someone that proves FLT is someone with a mind that can see past mistakes and errors and fixes them. Not a con-art fraud like you Andrew that runs and hides every time a question is raised over your offerings.

And there is the horrible oversight of your geometry abilities, Andrew, I mean you took elliptic curves to model Counting numbers, but so horrid in geometry are you Andrew, for you missed noticing that the ellipse is never a slant cut in a cone, for that is the oval. The ellipse slant cut comes from the cylinder, yet Andrew, you were way way too daffy in geometry to notice that error. Yet to this day, a High School student can prove the oval comes from the cone with a paper cone and a Kerr or Mason lid stuck inside.

So, Andrew, you are not even a mathematician, but a seeker for fame and fortune and who runs and hides at every serious question of shortcomings of your FLT, put to you. You surround yourself with other con-art fraud such as book writers Simon Singh or John Stillwell brown nosers, who gain to make fortune along with you. But when serious questions of your FLT are put forward, there is Andrew, running and hiding, run Andrew, hide Andrew.

When, Andrew, will you stop running and hiding? Why not acknowledge the truth, that AND truth table is TTTF, something you used in your error filled FLT b.s. Why not acknowledge what a High School student can prove-- the oval is the cone slant cut.

And when in the world are you going to start a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Something you should have started back in 1990s when you posted in sci.math that your FLT was faltering and failed and needed a patch. However, you never really patched it, for your method of proof was doomed to failure. You could not even proof the Generalized FLT with your nonsense offering.

Andrew, you are not a mathematician, but a crank.

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)