So when writing a history book of a science such as mathematics, one must be careful in the end to deliver the truth about the science, even though past beliefs that were wrong are included in the history, that the author must convey what the current held true beliefs of math are.

And this is why it is important for Stillwell and any one else who is contemplating on writing a history of math, that they sit down and do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in that chore, they will see that most of the math they thought was true was indeed false. For example, the belief of continuity, when continuity does not allow for a FTC, and physics warned mathematicians as long ago as 1900 with Planck's discrete physics of quantum mechanics.

So, how does it feel for Stillwell to know that his books on math history are like bringing books of the 4 Humours in medicine as the teaching textbook, where almost all claims are false. And yet that is exactly what Stillwell's math history books are-- the humours of medicine and very little true math.

You see, a geometry proof of FTC, is a total health check of Consistency in mathematics, and much of Old Math ideas, disallow a geometry proof. But we must have Calculus, so we throw out all the stuff that impedes a proof. This means the true numbers of mathematics are the decimal Grid Numbers and not the gaggle of lies of Reals.

In that light, well then 90% of Stillwell's history of math would be false and fake math. He has the wrong numbers of mathematics-- Reals. He has the wrong definition of what is a equation of math. He has the wrong definition of what a function is. He has no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. He even messes up geometry for he has sine and cosine as sinusoidal waves when in truth they are semicircle waves. He has ellipse as a conic cut when that is a oval. He has multi-dimensions beyond 3rd dimension.

In a proper history of any science, we can mention past false beliefs because they were the math of that long past time, but we must have the true math beliefs as the forefront of the book. Example of physics history we can mention the time in which we believed Earth was stationary and all else revolved around Earth, but only mention this in passing. But Stillwell's math history never tells of the true mathematics that is currently thought of as true. So a person reading a physics history book and coming away with the thoughts that Earth is still stationary and everything else revolving around Earth, is the same effect that Stillwell's math history book leaves on a student or new reader.

This is why requiring Stillwell to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would hopefully clear his mind of all that fake math he carries and preaches in his books. His books seen as more pollution than edification and clarity and understanding.

AP

fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 07:50:06 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> So when writing a history book of a science such as mathematics, one must be careful in the end to deliver the truth about the science, even though past beliefs that were wrong are included in the history, that the author must convey what the current held true beliefs of math are.
>
> And this is why it is important for Stillwell and any one else who is contemplating on writing a history of math, that they sit down and do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in that chore, they will see that most of the math they thought was true was indeed false. For example, the belief of continuity, when continuity does not allow for a FTC, and physics warned mathematicians as long ago as 1900 with Planck's discrete physics of quantum mechanics.
>
> So, how does it feel for Stillwell to know that his books on math history are like bringing books of the 4 Humours in medicine as the teaching textbook, where almost all claims are false. And yet that is exactly what Stillwell's math history books are-- the humours of medicine and very little true math.
>
> You see, a geometry proof of FTC, is a total health check of Consistency in mathematics, and much of Old Math ideas, disallow a geometry proof. But we must have Calculus, so we throw out all the stuff that impedes a proof. This means the true numbers of mathematics are the decimal Grid Numbers and not the gaggle of lies of Reals.
>
> In that light, well then 90% of Stillwell's history of math would be false and fake math. He has the wrong numbers of mathematics-- Reals. He has the wrong definition of what is a equation of math. He has the wrong definition of what a function is. He has no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. He even messes up geometry for he has sine and cosine as sinusoidal waves when in truth they are semicircle waves. He has ellipse as a conic cut when that is a oval. He has multi-dimensions beyond 3rd dimension.
>
> In a proper history of any science, we can mention past false beliefs because they were the math of that long past time, but we must have the true math beliefs as the forefront of the book. Example of physics history we can mention the time in which we believed Earth was stationary and all else revolved around Earth, but only mention this in passing. But Stillwell's math history never tells of the true mathematics that is currently thought of as true. So a person reading a physics history book and coming away with the thoughts that Earth is still stationary and everything else revolving around Earth, is the same effect that Stillwell's math history book leaves on a student or new reader.
>
> This is why requiring Stillwell to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would hopefully clear his mind of all that fake math he carries and preaches in his books. His books seen as more pollution than edification and clarity and understanding.
>
> AP

What do you count as a "geometric proof"? The standard proof of FTC is pretty geometric already, no?

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 10:18:56 AM UTC-5, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> What do you count as a "geometric proof"? The standard proof of FTC is pretty geometric already, no?

A limit analysis is not a proof, much like thinking a commentary is a proof.. So you wiggle around on the x axis-- wiggle around on the y-axis, then you say-- see-- this proves this.

A geometry proof is much like a High School prove with rectangle and right triangle.

Quoting from my book TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Last revision was 2NOV2020.
Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

74) Lesson 5-6 Freshperson High School, Calculus // Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

I am going to see if I can teach Calculus, back to back with Pythagorean theorem. Why not teach two of the most important ideas in all of mathematics, teach them back to back.

PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS

The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the

FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture

Remember the trapezoid you drew in Lesson 3-6.

Trapezoid: (13,15) (17,15) (17,20) (13,16) well let us redraw that. Just to remind us of what a trapezoid looks like.

Now draw a new trapezoid so it is easier to explain this Calculus. This theorem is the essence of Calculus, so we want to understand it easily.

Draw the trapezoid (0,0) (10,0) (10, 20) (0, 10)

Now look at the coordinate point (5,10) and mark it with a "m" meaning midpoint.

For it is the midpoint of the line segment that goes from (0,10) to (10,20) a slanted line segment.

Draw it in and draw the whole trapezoid.

Now the derivative in Calculus is this rooftop of a slanted line segment that goes from (0,10) to (10,20).

Here is a picture of what you have

From this:
        B
        /|
      /  |
 m /----|
  /      |
|A      |
|____|

The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral. The area of the rectangle is the integral.

To this:

______
|         |
|         |
|         |
---------

So, we have two items in Calculus for this theorem, we have a derivative, the straight line segment A to B with m in the middle. And we have the rectangle area which we call the integral.

We draw in m, the midpoint because that is where we have a hinge, we imagine a hinge there. In fact, some teachers will build this model in wood working class just to use in math class.

So, Stillwell's history of math books are seen as a textbook of Medicine where they are teaching the 4 Humours as if it is modern medicine.

1) The Reals are not the true numbers of mathematics, the Decimal Grid Numbers are.

2) The only quadrant is the 1st quadrant as Descartes first discovered.

3) Negative numbers do not exist.

4) A true equation of math follows the Equation axiom-- never a 0 or negative number alone on the rightside of equation.

5) The only true functions are polynomials, all others need to be converted to polynomials.

6) The continuum is an illusion, which physics proved starting with Planck in 1900.

7) Calculus is geometry and requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

All textbooks need to have those 7 ideas at the heart of their textbook, and if not, their math book is just pollution. And will be quickly abandoned as nonsense in the near future.

AP

fredag 13 augusti 2021 kl. 20:04:58 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 10:18:56 AM UTC-5, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > What do you count as a "geometric proof"? The standard proof of FTC is pretty geometric already, no?
> A limit analysis is not a proof, much like thinking a commentary is a proof. So you wiggle around on the x axis-- wiggle around on the y-axis, then you say-- see-- this proves this.
>
> A geometry proof is much like a High School prove with rectangle and right triangle.
>
> Quoting from my book TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
> by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
>
> Last revision was 2NOV2020.
> Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.
>
>
>
> 74) Lesson 5-6 Freshperson High School, Calculus // Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> I am going to see if I can teach Calculus, back to back with Pythagorean theorem. Why not teach two of the most important ideas in all of mathematics, teach them back to back.
>
> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS
>
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the
>
> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
>
> Remember the trapezoid you drew in Lesson 3-6.
>
> Trapezoid: (13,15) (17,15) (17,20) (13,16) well let us redraw that. Just to remind us of what a trapezoid looks like.
>
> Now draw a new trapezoid so it is easier to explain this Calculus. This theorem is the essence of Calculus, so we want to understand it easily.
>
> Draw the trapezoid (0,0) (10,0) (10, 20) (0, 10)
>
> Now look at the coordinate point (5,10) and mark it with a "m" meaning midpoint.
>
> For it is the midpoint of the line segment that goes from (0,10) to (10,20) a slanted line segment.
>
> Draw it in and draw the whole trapezoid.
>
> Now the derivative in Calculus is this rooftop of a slanted line segment that goes from (0,10) to (10,20).
>
> Here is a picture of what you have
>
> From this:
> B
> /|
> / |
> m /----|
> / |
> |A |
> |____|
>
>
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> integral. The area of the rectangle is the integral.
>
> To this:
>
> ______
> | |
> | |
> | |
> ---------
>
> So, we have two items in Calculus for this theorem, we have a derivative, the straight line segment A to B with m in the middle. And we have the rectangle area which we call the integral.
>
> We draw in m, the midpoint because that is where we have a hinge, we imagine a hinge there. In fact, some teachers will build this model in wood working class just to use in math class.
Assuming I understand your idea correctly, it only works for affine functions.

lördag 14 augusti 2021 kl. 07:14:49 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> So, Stillwell's history of math books are seen as a textbook of Medicine where they are teaching the 4 Humours as if it is modern medicine.
>
> 1) The Reals are not the true numbers of mathematics, the Decimal Grid Numbers are.
>
> 2) The only quadrant is the 1st quadrant as Descartes first discovered.
>
> 3) Negative numbers do not exist.
>
> 4) A true equation of math follows the Equation axiom-- never a 0 or negative number alone on the rightside of equation.
>
> 5) The only true functions are polynomials, all others need to be converted to polynomials.
>
> 6) The continuum is an illusion, which physics proved starting with Planck in 1900.
>
> 7) Calculus is geometry and requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> All textbooks need to have those 7 ideas at the heart of their textbook, and if not, their math book is just pollution. And will be quickly abandoned as nonsense in the near future.
>
> AP

What....?

SCI.MATH FAQ, 26Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running well-- today's topics-- take a look at the only pure science newsgroup, free of spammers and police drag net spam, free of stalkers.

The only thing worth discussing in sci.math and to shift the momentum of the entire Math Community to the TRUTH OF MATHEMATICS is the painful having to throw out cranks of mathematics-- Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, and many others who refuse to recognize the single most important math of our times is a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in doing such, it cleans out mathematics just like scrubbing and vacuuming to clean out our houses is a necessary function in going forward. And the above listed math fools are trying everything in their power to keep math entrenched in their stupidity.

Another item of huge concern is the correction of the Oval as the slant cut in Conic Sections, not the ellipse, and we can see how mindless and idiotic is the ship of state of mathematics, when the above list of failed mathematicians even refuses to correct such a simple error.

Also, a third item which reveals that most math professors are good at calculations but mostly mindless fools of logic or just making a proof of mathematics, for all of the above listed fools of math still preach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. All because their tiny pea brained minds of logic can never understand how Boole screwed up on truth tables and that AND is never TFFF but always TTTF. Yet the above math fools use 2 OR 1= 3 every day in all their proofs of mathematics.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

XXXXXXXXX

The ugliness of a "gang posting in sci.math".

In the latest FAQ of sci.math, we include the horrible behavior of Play Actor Spam by John Gabriel and his buddies Zelos Malum, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Kibo Parry M. where Gabriel fills up sci.math with 15 threads and waits for Dan to add a repetitive scree, then Jan Burse, then at nighttime for Zelos to add a one liner. PURPOSE of this spam-- to keep Gabriel 15 threads a Constant fixture, all day long, all night long as a permanent scree on page one every day of the year, and push all other posts into 2nd 3rd or hinter pages of sci.math.

And the worst part of that story, they are paid indirectly via USA NSF and dept of Education, paying World std Kibo Parry, who then divvies out the money to his actors John Gabriel (all has to be confirmed of these allegations by a honest investigative reporter at least to the standards of Wikipedia which broke the story of the NSF link decades ago.)

XXXXXXXX

Today's LIKELY govt drag net spammers in sci.math-- Amine. Likely FBI, CIA, Mi5, Mi6, and other govt agencies that give a shit, a shit about sci.math and overrunning sci.math.

Amine police drag net & religion posts in sci.math is spam and abuse.

XXXXXXXXXXX

Principles of sci.math

1) Above all, do math in sci.math, for at the end of the day, end of the year, end of a life, it is the math that you do in sci.math that only counts.

2) When doing math in sci.math and talking to someone else that is seriously doing math with you-- be polite.

3) Most posters degenerate into ad hominem attackers. Reread (1).

4) Sci.math is open to all, sadly, to even those who never do math in sci.math, but the openness is a blessing in disguise, because the openess more often than not, gets at the truth of science that has been corrupted by other scientists. And sci.math is self-policing, meaning that if you continue to piss and poop, (like Jeff Relf offtopic in sci.physics) if you continue to piss and poop in sci.math, the others who seriously do math in sci.math will self police the miscreant out. For offtopic spammers like Relf is no better than a person invited to dinner and instead of using the bathroom, shits in the middle of the dining room floor.

5) Prime Minister Boris Johnson & President Joe Biden, please call off your police agencies and FBI, CIA, Mi5, Mi6 of their daily "police drag net spam" in sci.physics and sci.math, and leave those two newsgroups completely alone to do just physics and math. Totally inappropriate of govt agencies to ruin sci.math and sci.physics, you may as well have your agents in all church ceremonies applying drag net spam. The spammer "__" is never appropriate in sci.math or sci.physics, nor is the Stonehenge freak, or any of the other drag net spammers. We all thank the USA and British and other governments and agencies like CERN for inventing Usenet, but please, do not destroy what you built, with police drag net spam. Adhere to the tenet, that a forum sci.physics and sci.math are specifically devoted to physics and math, not to a govt bureaucracy chasing after criminals and terrorists with their highly flamed rhetoric and loud noises in sci.math, sci.physics.

SCI.MATH FAQ and SCI. PHYSICS FAQ, although I personally remember the FAQ routinely posted to sci.math in 1993-1999 from Univ Waterloo in Canada, and from Scott I Chase from LBL dot gov in sci.physics.

Snapshot History of Usenet's sci.physics and sci.math, and why it is almost dead, not as dead as sci.chem, but approaching it, save for a few individuals such as AP, and others. Others who care more about truth, than about money and prejudice and opinion, and mindless sentiment and sex orientation.

AP cannot afford to lose sci.physics and sci.math because most of his new ideas after 1993 were all recorded and archived in sci.math and sci.physics.

The death of sci.chem and so many other newsgroups can be blamed on a govt interference pattern of paying for stalkers, and police drag net spam. As if doing physics in sci.physics is a nuisance to others doing stalking and police drag net spam.

Sci.chem is a dead newsgroup. Sci.physics and sci.math are almost dead newsgroups where stalkers fill each thread of those doing physics in sci.physics or math in sci.math, paid stalkers to demonize authors and after the end of the day, all of the posts are flushed off into 2nd or 3rd or 4th page by government block spam, police drag net spam to get all posts off the front page. Here is an example of block-flush-spam found almost daily in sci.physics. The purpose of which is to flush all posts into 2nd or 3rd page-- out of sight, out of mind of posts that have physics content.

unread,
i take back what i said previous forgive me im sick i ccry
How are you ?
7:30 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
i take back whta i said previosu forgive me im sick i cry
How are you ?
7:29 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
in 1999 they called me a monster but i thought i was a good monster like for example the monsters of rocknroll>>and not a bad monster>>what did i do to be a monster?i dont know, its because somthing she told them that i dont know and never will cause i wasnt any mmonster
7:29 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
in 1999 when i was a kid my senses didnt detect the monstruos proportion that i was confrontated aka with the rockstars >> if i was anonymous there woudnt be any problem cause i could handle it cause i had the controls>>but she stole my controls from me and made me contract freeze and they wanted me to explain without me having hte controls>>she caught me>>and i turned to crap>>she wanetd to steal my freedom and she succeeded
7:29 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
i take back what i said preivous forgive me im sick i cry

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
9:46 AM (1 hour ago)



to
On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 9:17:14 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 11:27:39 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 6-SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 8Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running--
> > For details see:
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> >

Zelos Malum is doing a block-flush-spam over in sci.math, and every night he spits up as spam every one of Gabriel's spam that morning and loads the block of 15 threads onto sci.math to push everyone off the front pages.

Not only does Zelos Malum do a Block-Flush-Spam every night by regurgitating every one of John Gabriel's daytime spam, usually a block of 15 threads, but now we have Markus over in Europe doing Block-Flush-Spam.
So they do all sorts of attacks, attack your personal thread, and in conjunction, block-flush-spam to get your thread over onto page 2 or 3 hinterlands.
Many a poster is a juvenile delinquent who never grew up, and thinks Usenet is another game toy, where you have to battle authors to see if they go away, with your attacks. Some mothers in Europe must be teaching their bad naughty child-- go play with Usenet, to get them out of their hair, but into the hairs of authors in sci.math and sci.physics, just like Markus.
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.

And now we have not only Zelos Malum misfit repeating all 15 John Gabriel threads everyday of the year, but we have the new misfit of Markus Klyver repeating the misfit Malum 15 threads.

Repeating or repetition is one of the strongest yet annoying weapons used in Usenet.

John Stillwell fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone, for otherwise, he would have said something by now 2016-2021.
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> Why don't you buy this kind of stuff that will show you that
> you didn't do the experiment right?
>
> https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/595178906992508262/
>
> Moreover that a slant cut in a cylinder shows an ellipse does not
> contradict that some slant cuts in a cone shows an ellipse also.

AP writes: no wonder that AP's discovery that Cone slant cut is an Oval never the ellipse is because everyone in math community other than AP thinks a cone has 2 axes of symmetry, just the same as a cylinder has 2 axis of symmetry.

I have heard of color blindness where you fail to see certain wavelengths of color, and guess that in mathematics, now, we have to test students and teachers for axis blindness.

🦑 of Math and 🐙 of Physics Archimedes "math hater" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>
> John Stillwell fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone, for otherwise, he would have said something by now 2016-2021.
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
>> Why don't you buy this kind of stuff that will show you that
>> you didn't do the experiment right?
>>
>> https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/595178906992508262/
>>
>> Moreover that a slant cut in a cylinder shows an ellipse does not
>> contradict that some slant cuts in a cone shows an ellipse also.

In 3D geometry, a cylinder is a degenerate form of cone.
>
> AP writes: no wonder that AP's discovery that Cone slant cut is an Oval never the ellipse is because everyone in math community other than AP thinks a cone has 2 axes of symmetry, just the same as a cylinder has 2 axis of symmetry.

StupidPlutonium, all you have shown that the axis of the cone is an axis
of symmetry for the intersecting ellipse for only ONE dimension. The
axis of symmetry (of the long length of the ellipse) is NOT the axis of
the cone. All that matters is that it exists.
>
> I have heard of color blindness where you fail to see certain wavelengths of color, and guess that in mathematics, now, we have to test students and teachers for axis blindness.

Which Archimedes Plutonium suffers from.

Mathematicians use proofs, such as this one:

From: David Petry <davidlpetry@gmail.com>

Start with the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2, and rotate it through an angle
'theta' around the 'y' axis, and consider the intersection of that
rotated cone with the plane z = <constant>
>
To simplify things, let c = cos(theta) and s = sin(theta). Then the
rotation is defined by

z --> cz + sx
x --> -sz + cx
y --> y

So the equation of the rotated cone is

(cz+sx)^2 = (-sz+cx)^2 + y^2

and now let C = c^2-s^2 and S = 2sc (again, just to simplify the look
of things)

so we get

Cz^2 = Cx^2 - 2Szx + y^2

and letting 'z' equal the constant 'k' gives

Ck^2 + k^2*S^2/C = C(x - k*S/C)^2 + y^2

which is the equation of an ellipse if C > 0.

------
It should be obvious that the ellipse is symmetrical around y=0 and
x=k*S/C (NOT x=0!), so Plutonium's implicit argument that it's not
symmetrical around the cone axis (x=0, y=0) is irrelevant.

Kibo Parry M on> 🦑 Thomas Hales of Math and 🐙 of Physics John Stillwell "math hater"
> Jill Pipher, AMS, Ken Ribet > fails at math and science:
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:55:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🦑 Thomas Hales of Math and 🐙 of Physics John Stillwell "math hater"
> Jill Pipher, AMS, Ken Ribet > fails at math and science:
>
On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 2:02:32 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:51:29 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 15 thread spam by Zelos Malum, every night in favor of his lover John Gabriel
>
> And where is Andrew Wiles "do the math" that Terence Tao say everyone is supposed to be doing
> while Jill Pipher are calling everyone gay with spewing tens of thousands of lines of spam.
>

AP writes: I would hardly say they are gay and merry, maybe after a few cool beers.

> DO the math Andrew.
> John Stillwell use log.
> Terence Tao claim everything is a polymath
> Ken Ribet have shown nothing to demonstrate that the log is polynomial.
>

AP writes: you mean the Ribet theorem is down the drain too.

> Hint, the log is always increasing and always doing that more slowly as x increases.
> Can Gilbert Strang construct a logical argument that says that NO polynomial can behave that way?
> That should not be difficult, even for Simon Singh or Kevin Hartnett.
> DO the math Andrew.

AP writes: BWR, I think your prodding is falling on deaf ears, for Andrew cannot even admit the oval is the slant cut in cone, not the ellipse. Something that even Simon and Kevin can probably work out and get a cover picture in Nick Thompson's Wired magazine. BWR, you don't think that "wired" means "stoned", do you, at least I haven't heard that in hippie culture lately.

SCI.MATH FAQ, 20Sep2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running well-- today's topics-- take a look at the only pure science newsgroup, free of spammers and police drag net spam, free of stalkers.

The only thing worth discussing in sci.math and to shift the momentum of the entire Math Community to the TRUTH OF MATHEMATICS is the painful having to throw out cranks of mathematics-- Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, and many others who refuse to recognize the single most important math of our times is a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in doing such, it cleans out mathematics just like scrubbing and vacuuming to clean out our houses is a necessary function in going forward. And the above listed math fools are trying everything in their power to keep math entrenched in their stupidity.

Another item of huge concern is the correction of the Oval as the slant cut in Conic Sections, not the ellipse, and we can see how mindless and idiotic is the ship of state of mathematics, when the above list of failed mathematicians even refuses to correct such a simple error.

Also, a third item which reveals that most math professors are good at calculations but mostly mindless fools of logic or just making a proof of mathematics, for all of the above listed fools of math still preach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. All because their tiny pea brained minds of logic can never understand how Boole screwed up on truth tables and that AND is never TFFF but always TTTF. Yet the above math fools use 2 OR 1= 3 every day in all their proofs of mathematics.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

XXXXXXXXXXX

Principles of sci.math

1) Above all, do math in sci.math, for at the end of the day, end of the year, end of a life, it is the math that you do in sci.math that only counts.

2) When doing math in sci.math and talking to someone else that is seriously doing math with you-- be polite.

3) Most posters degenerate into ad hominem attackers. Reread (1).

4) Sci.math is open to all, sadly, to even those who never do math in sci.math, but the openness is a blessing in disguise, because the openess more often than not, gets at the truth of science that has been corrupted by other scientists. And sci.math is self-policing, meaning that if you continue to piss and poop, (like Jeff Relf offtopic in sci.physics) if you continue to piss and poop in sci.math, the others who seriously do math in sci.math will self police the miscreant out. For offtopic spammers like Relf is no better than a person invited to dinner and instead of using the bathroom, shits in the middle of the dining room floor.


5) Prime Minister Boris Johnson & President Joe Biden, please call off your police agencies and FBI, CIA, Mi5, Mi6 of their daily "police drag net spam" in sci.physics and sci.math, and leave those two newsgroups completely alone to do just physics and math. Totally inappropriate of govt agencies to ruin sci.math and sci.physics, you may as well have your agents in all church ceremonies applying drag net spam. The spammer "__" is never appropriate in sci.math or sci.physics, nor is the Stonehenge freak, or any of the other drag net spammers. We all thank the USA and British and other governments and agencies like CERN for inventing Usenet, but please, do not destroy what you built, with police drag net spam. Adhere to the tenet, that a forum sci.physics and sci.math are specifically devoted to physics and math, not to a govt bureaucracy chasing after criminals and terrorists with their highly flamed rhetoric and loud noises in sci.math, sci.physics.

6) Criminal-Stalking is defined as constant attacking of another person's character exclusive of science content in his/her threads for more than 1 year. In the case of criminal stalking the attackee, can just shred the attackers post and repost. For stalking is not science, nor academics nor debate nor discussion. Stalking is insanity and criminal behavior.

AP writes: AP no longer tolerates any Criminal Stalker and thus shreds his attack and spits the byproduct back into the lap of the stalker.

Kibo says Dr. Stillwell to publish in Univ San Francisco 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