Become a fool that Terry Tao has become in mathematics education.

On Sunday, January 9, 1994 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-6, Terry Tao wrote:
> In article <2gpbf9$m...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> > TWO PROOFS OF THE RIEMANN HYPOTHESIS
> > ...
> >[RH is equivalent to] That M(N) grows no faster than a constant multiple k
> >of (N^1/2)(N^epsilon) as N goes to infinity (epsilon is arbitrary but
> >greater than 0).
> Quite incredibly, you are absolutely correct so far. But see below about
> the Moebius function.
> >...and The Prime Number Theorem: the distribution of prime numbers is
> >governed by a logarithmic function
> True also - for normal, finite integers. Did you know the 10-adics only
> has 2 primes? And the Plutonium integers that Abian has posted about have
> NO primes whatsoever?
> >connected. Geometrically, the logarithmic spiral exhausts every
> >positive integer, see figure 1. The area of the rectangles containing
> >the logarithmic spiral is always greater, since the spiral is always
> >inside the rectangles.
> I get the feeling that the rectangles are overlapping in some strange wat
> that needs to be taken into account, but not seeing the diagram, I can't be
> certain.
> >... But if the Moebius
> >function was false then there must exist a number M such that M^(1/2)
> >is not the limit of the factors for M
> Are you sure you know what the Moebius function is? It has nothing to do
> with the "limit of factors". \mu(n) is always 0, 1, or -1.
> The summand M(x) = \sum_{n=1}^x \mu(n) is also unrelated to the "limit of
> factors of x".
>
> >... Euler's
> >formula in complex variable form is as follows:
> >(1/(1-(1/(2^c))))x(1/(1-(1/(3^c))))x(1/(1-(1/(5^c))))x(1/(1-(1/(7^c))))x
> >(1/(1-(1/(11^c))))x . . . , where c is a complex variable, c=u+iv. The
> >Riemann zeta function is as follows: Re(c) > >1+(1/(2^c))+(1/(3^c))+(1/(4^c))+. . . , where c is a complex variable,
> >c=u+iv.
> These formulas only work when the real part of c is greater than 1. (Just
> as the formula 1 + x + x^2 + x^3 + ... = 1/(1-x) only works when -1 < x <
> 1.) Check any book on analytic number theory. When the real part of c is
> less than or equal to 1, the zeta function is defined by analytic
> continuation, or an integral formula, or by the functional equation.
> This already makes this proof invalid, but let's continue anyway:
> >Euler's formula involves multiplication of terms and the
> >Riemann zeta function involves addition of terms of a sequence.
> Yeah, but different sequences for each formula.
> >Taking
> >Re(c) > 0, suppose the Riemann Hypothesis is false then there is a 0
> >such that Re(c)=0 and c does NOT equal 1/2 +iy, which implies there is
> >another 0 which is not on the 1/2 real line. Which means another real
> ^
> complex, not real -|
> >number other than 1/2 works as an exponent resulting in a zero for the
> >Riemann zeta function, and a zero in the Euler formula. Thus, Riemann
> >zeta function subtract Euler formula must equal zero.
> >This implies for
> >any other real number exponent, either rational or irrational numbers,
> >such as for example the rational exponents: 1/3,1/4,1/5, . . . (Note:
> >any other exponent y/x , where y and x are Real numbers and where the
> >Real number of A^(y/x) such that y not equal 1, immediately transforms
> >to a number A^y(1/x), so that exponents with a 1 in the numerator
> >entail all of the Real exponents).
> This sentence hath no content. This implies WHAT for any other real number
> exponent? And why?
> >Then for exponent 1/3 there has to
> >exist a number M not equal 0 where (M+M+M) - (MXMXM) = 0.
> If you're trying to do what I think you're trying to do, each of the M in
> that formula is a different M. They all belong to the same sequence,
> perhaps. But they're not the same number.
> Then again, the sentence before this one made no sense, so all bets are
> off.
> >(and claims similarly that for every 1/N there is an M for which NM - M^n
> = 0)
> >... If
> >RH were false, then another number other than 2 would satisfy the
> >equation ((N+N)^1/N) - ((NxN)^1/N) = N.
> ^-- perhaps you mean 0, though even
> then it doesn't make any sense.
> This equation does not follow from the previous. Unless, of course,
> each N in that equation refers to a different number.
> Incidentally, the 10-adic
> N = ....163574218752
> satisfies N+N = N*N. (N actually happens to be twice the idempotent that
> ends in 6.)
> And in Abian-Plutonium arithmetic, there is no number N, apart from 0, for
> which the statement
> N+N = N*N
> is true. For example N = .....000002 does not work, since 0.2 + 0.2 is not
> equal to 0.2 * 0.2.
> Paradoxically, though, there are infinitely many N in the Abian-Plutonium
> arithmetic for which N+N and N*N evaluate to the same number.
> Specifically, N = .....00002, ....00020, ...00200, ....02000, etc.
> (This of course is an absolutely non-serious violation of any law of
> equality you'd care to mention. :-)
>
> --
> Terry Tao Math Dept., Princeton University (t...@math.princeton.edu)
> "God is dead." - Nietzsche
> "Nietzsche is dead." - God

Gerald Edgar to do the Cone Oval Slant Cut Experiment of folding a paper cone,

On Thursday, January 6, 1994 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-6, Gerald Edgar wrote:
> Mathematical Cranks
> This is the title of an interesting book by Underwood Dudley, 1992.
> There is an (also interesting) review of it by Ian Stewart in the
> January issue of the American Mathematical Monthly.
> --
> Gerald A. Edgar Internet: ed...@math.ohio-state.edu
> Department of Mathematics Bitnet: EDGAR@OHSTPY
> The Ohio State University telephone: 614-292-0395 (Office)
> Columbus, OH 43210 -292-4975 (Math. Dept.) -292-1479 (Dept. Fax)

I want Terence Tao to do the Cone Oval Slant Cut Experiment of folding a paper cone, dropping a Kerr or Mason lid inside, slanting it at angle and photograph the empty space that is the outline of Oval, never the ellipse. And publish that in a American Mathematical Monthly or another math journal. Include a reference to AP's book on this subject (seen below).

Next, I want Dr. Tao to do a visual cut out of AP's right triangle on a trapezoid when flipped down is part of a calculus integral rectangle, when flipped up on its hinge is the calculus derivative of the slope of the hypotenuse of that right triangle. Dr. Tao publish this in American Mathematical Monthly or some other math journal and include the AP book that references all of this Calculus as seen below.

It is time the world stops propagandizing science education by people who are fools of mathematics, who never engage when it is pointed out they have many mistakes in their presentation of mathematics and end up brainwashing students, not teaching those students.

The Internet, being Freedom of Speech is beyond the control of corrupt gatekeepers of science education and even math professors who cannot tell right from wrong math. And the Internet caused the huge bankruptcy of many a magazine and journal. But there are still too many corrupt math professors and math journals that still keep teaching Propaganda Corrupt Mistaken Math. And it is high time those be cleaned up or cleaned out. For what these journals and bad math professor teachers do, is marr, scar and ruin the education of almost every young person in mathematics they come in contact with. And makes them become a fool that Terry Tao has become in mathematics education.


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.