Simon Singh not as bad as Kevin Hartnett in brown-nosing, but both a mockery of science and math truth.

Simon Singh not as bad as Kevin Hartnett in brown-nosing, but both a mockery of science and math truth. And Amazingly Simon prefers 150 pages of something he cannot understand over the simple fact of 2+2=2x2=4 while there is no N+N+N=NxNxN= M.

And the same can be said of reporter Kevin Hartnett that he prefers the mindless idiotic Dr. Tao suggestion that Partial Differential Equations says anything about Collatz conjecture, and disdainfully dismisses AP's 2016 proof of Collatz which simply says, Kevin, that in any 4 consecutive Evens, say pick 752,754,756,758, pick that run Kevin, and Kevin, one of those 4 is divisible by at least a factor of 8, is the whole entire proof of Collatz. And this is why fossil fuel burning is so frightening, for as we fill the air more and more with toxic chemicals, (CO2 isomer is toxic-- see AP's chemistry books where no chemist ever realized CO2 has many isomers). And this is why fossil fuel burning is so frightening because of its health worries, that reporters like Kevin Hartnett is one of those effected by so much pollution in the air that he rather accept a dumb Dr. Tao search in Partial Differential Equations to solve Collatz, than any rational brain would pick AP's fact that 4 consecutive Evens has one of which is factorable by 8.

Now I have a hard time of remembering people's names, but at the rate of Global Dumbnification of the air we breathe making all of us less intelligent by the day, that sometime in the future, at this rate Kevin will be reporting on Collatz, thinking it is a conjecture of about why the Sun went Red Giant phase and not mathematics at all. And Kevin will be interviewing Simon Singh with Roger Penrose at Oxford saying that Boole had discovered Red Giant stars.

In the old days-- days before Internet made science world wide public, that con-artists of mathematics would get away with their tricks of the trade, by all the seclusion and country club, I wash your hand, you wash mine in corruption.

And what amazes me most about the side show traffic of con-artists like Andrew Wiles is they gather together and assemble brown nosers to make a small fortune from writing a sugar coated gloss of Andrew's fake math. So what amazes me most, is that here we have Simon Singh writing a book on Wiles fakery Fermat's Last Theorem alleged proof of 150 pages where Simon understands perhaps under 1% of what is going on, then writes a book on it, perhaps with Wiles dictating what his con-art work was, a copy paste by Simon. But what amazes me most about say Simon Singh or even Kevin Hartnett on Tao's Collatz attempt.

What amazes me most is that when I tell Simon the true real proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was done in 1991-3 by AP and is not a 150 page long incomprehensible piece of garbage, no, AP's proof is one line sentence long. And so, AP says to Simon, you see, the reason we have the Pythagorean theorem of solutions in exponent 2 is because math has a very special two numbers of 2+2=2x2= 4, but the reason there are no solutions for exponent 3 is because there is no special number N+N+N= NxNxN= M and also higher exponents have the same argument.

So the minute AP says or writes his proof to Simon, there is frowns and convulsions from Simon and repugnance.

And so what AP is amazed by is that someone like Simon cuddles and adores and glums onto a 150 page incomprehensible piece of worthless trash that is Wiles proof of FLT, while Simon would reject AP's one liner proof that Simon clearly understands from start to finish.

So AP not only wrote a book on his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem but AP wrote a book on the World wide Dumbnification of the Human Species, saying in effect that fossil fuel burning not only warms the planet (although not as much as a Sun gone Red Giant) but that fossil fuel burning with all those toxic chemicals in the air makes the human mind so on a downward spiral of cackling foolish idiots as time goes by. In other words, what our generation of average person can still understand the Pythagorean theorem, just barely, for Simon could say A^2 + B^2 = C^2, but in the next generation, the average person with all that chemical load settling into their brains, has a difficult time of 2 + 2 = 4, for many will not even be able to recognize it at all.

And the same goes for UCLA Dr. Tao with a brown nosed write up by Quanta magazines Kevin Hartnett, where he discusses how Tao is investing Partial Differential Equations as a possible solution of Collatz conjecture and Kevin saying things like Tao is the greatest and Tao's little work amounts more than everyone else combined in the world who worked on Collatz. Only Kevin forgetting that AP proved all of Collatz in 2016, with the simple observation of a fact that even Kevin with his fat head would appreciate. For I am sure Kevin knows, once it is explained to him that given any 4 consecutive Even numbers say we pick 564, 566, 568, 570, that one of them is factorable by 8. So that if you land on a Collatz odd number, and do a pick of 3N+-1 simultaneously 3N+-3 that you slide down faster than even if you landed on a even number. The only thing remaining in Collatz is to find the large number counterexamples which AP says is likely found in numbers of 10^516 or larger.

So here what we have in science journalism is pandering that of math and science failures-- Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao, failures in the sense that they seek fame and fortune and not the "truth of math or science". Because if you seek math truth, you would not run and hide when AP asks you to acknowledge a cone cut at slant is the Oval, never the ellipse, nor would you run and hide when AP asks for your geometry proof of fundamental theorem of calculus, nor would you run and hide when AP asks you to acknowledge that Boole logic screwed up on OR and on AND, to fix those errors.

And this is where outsiders of science and math such as Kevin Hartnett or Simon Singh rake in money from con art fake math and do the world of science a disfavor.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

#8-3, 24th published book

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

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

Gabriel is a gay actor stunt, to appease his gay lovers. Gabriel steals the ideas of AP and regurgitates those stolen ideas-- like today's "My historic geometric theorem.." Stealing, or attempted stealing of AP's geometry proof of FTC. So the Gabriel spam in sci.math is a gang of gays of Kibo Parry M, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Franz, Earle Jones, Chris Thomason, Zelos Malum (see all these allegations in FAQ posting). So we have a awful PATTERN of abuse here where Gabriel play acts, and steals AP ideas, and his gay friends then ponce on Gabriel-- all a play act. All a acting except for the NSF and USA dept of Educ pay rolling Kibo Parry M to stalk, and to increase that govt pork barrel of funding Kibo Parry M (see FAQ for evidence of allegations) to fund that porkbarrel to Kibo, they needed a actor in South Africa to show to Dr. Panchanathan at NSF-- see, doctor you really do need to give us a $2 million dollar raise in funding to support our Gay actors in South Africa, and prison inmate Jan Burse in the heart of downtown ETH, and Dan Christensen parties with Linda Hasenfratz in Bermuda in the middle of a covid lockdown. Plus an additional Panchanathan pay hike to Kibo to afford a new geothermal hookup to his gay food and bar pickup stand in downtown MIT where Gilbert Strang is set to write his new edition of Calculus that defines the numbers he is using all along on page 360. Sorry if I missed anyone-- perhaps Konyberg, or better yet Earle Jones with his logo picture of Rodin's "the thinker" only Earle's logo is sucking on a cock. Can John Gabriel play act Earle Jones for a week???

Univ Witwatersrand-- please remove John Gabriel who is play-acting and spamming sci.math for more than a decade. What has happened and needs verification is that John is allegedly gay and that Kibo Parry M. was given some custodial chores of Usenet maintenance (also gay along with a gang of gays). Kibo Parry M was allegedly paid for by NSF as in this Wikipedia quote ever since about mid 1990s. And one of the chores assigned Kibo was to stalk harass and pester AP. So being paid to stalk by NSF, kibo Parry M decided to enlist his gay friend, about 12 of them according to a Franz post (see all of this in AP's FAQ, a daily FAQ posted to sci.math, all the references I mentioned).

So what has happened is that your South African John Gabriel is not what he appears to be in sci.math as a crank, but rather as partners in collusion.

South Africa has no big time Film industry where they play act and learn to be Actors, and so Gabriel is learning to act here in sci.math and creating this mountain of SPAM.

Do not be fooled that Dan Christensen, Zelos Malum, Jan Burse are opposed to Gabriel. Far from it, they likely sleep together when traveling to one another. They play act almost every thread they post in sci.math. Such as the monotonous Zelos Malum one liners repost of every 15 threads of the Gabriel day time posts, so that Gabriel posts are on the front page all day and nighttime too.

And AP guesses that some of the share of money the NSF or dept of Educ USA pays Kibo Parry M. some share of that corrupt money to stalk people on Usenet, AP guesses is divvied out to Zelos, Franz, Earle Jones, Dan Christensen probably paid by Canadian govt also, and to John Gabriel.

So the entire spiel of Gabriel spam is to mock AP and other legitimate authors in sci.math, and show a parade of actors pretending to attack JG, when all is a acting stunt.

Univ of Witwatersrand can you shut down the account of JG, for not only does he spam sci.math but he steals the ideas of AP without ever a single footnote.

74th published book

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

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

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

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

#1-4, 105th published book

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

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

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

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



#1-5, 112th published book

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

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

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

Product details
• ASIN : B0875SVDC7
• Publication date : April 15, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 1134 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#1-6, 135th published book

QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.

I saw no footnote or citing reference to AP's book geometry proof of Calculus in John Gabriel's latest stolen properties--

Eram semper recta (John Gabriel wrote:)
Calculus is 100% pure geometry.
On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 08:52:44 UTC+3, Eram semper recta wrote: > On Sunday, 12
1:25 AM

Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta

Google, please kick out John Gabriel as nothing more than a bad, loud mouth thief of others intellectual property. Gabriel continues to shoplift throughout sci.math, especially the ideas of AP.

Gabriel plays this acting actor game in sci.math, where his buddies repeat Gabriel's worthless 15 threads, his buddies add a one liner so that JG's 15 threads hogs the front page all day long. This is not science or math, but immature criminals turning sci.math into a arcade game.

SCI.MATH FAQ, 15Sep2021// 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.

XXXXXXXXX

***New news***

Stripping college degrees.

AP argues that college degrees are serious business and a holder should wear his/her degree proudly throughout the rest of their lives. AP argues that the Internet has been a new window on academics, and this new window shines a light on the fact that many receive college degrees but should never have been given one, Earle Jones, Dan Christensen, John Gabriel, Zelos Malum, Jan Burse, Kibo Parry Moroney. And their degrees from colleges should be made "null and void".

The Internet has become a new testing arena for all students across the world, and if you screw up badly in the Internet, should mean, no final degree from college, or the nullification of an existing degree.

College Degrees in science, every single one of them, should be seen as serious business and held to the highest standards. If anyone wears their college degree in science that puts shame on science, should have their degree made null and void. Such as being a professor yet unwilling to be vaccinated. John Gabriel, BWR, Earle Jones, Kibo Parry M., Dan Christensen, Zelos Malum, Markus Klyver, Jan Burse if any has a degree in science and engineering , should have their degrees made null and void. I decree it.

The null and void is not a single incident but years and years of "spamming mistakes". All of the above have been spamming their mistakes for 10 years or more. They should not have a degree from any college in science or engineering.

The education system needs a means of nullification as well as the -- passing out of degrees.

XXXXXXXXX

NSF passing this AP post of 8Sep2021 with a stamp of housekeeper approval and containing no dangerous chemicals by California inspection station entering California for boll weevil to the cotton harvest.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in reply to leading mathematician of Nederlands Klyver:
Sep 8, 2021, 2:30 PM
to sci.math (on a good day when the first 15 posts are not all about spammer Gabriel)

Banning the John Gabriel- Zelos Malum actor-acting con-math show from sci.math.
3k views

Gabriel is lead actor, but joined in by Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Kibo Parry M, Earle Jones with his logo picture of phallus in the mouth in daytime (Earle is a X-rated actor and parental guidance urged). At night time joined in by B-rated actors Zelos (bozo) Malum, Markus Klyver (drop kicked from Sweden to Dutch Netherlands).

PURPOSE: Have 15 worthless scree threads of Gabriel to be on the front page of sci. math constantly flooding sci.math and thus, taking over sci.math by that mindless worthless twit of John Gabriel. South Africa has no acting school industry like Bollywood or Hollywood and so gutter ghetto what is commonly called in parts of USA as "white trash" losers like Gabriel has to make due by acting in sci.math and destroying the lifeblood of sci.math.

Mommy, can Gabriel cause cancer? No, I don't want you reading his posts.

Gabriel was kicked out of every Internet outlet he ever had the sorry attendance of meeting. And a whole entire industry in computer social media was created, surrounding Gabriel, to disarm and cast off whereever Gabriel treaded his foots in. One only has to see how many YouTube movies had to be sterilized and sanitized after Gabriel had been kicked out of YouTube, worse than having to take bleach and sterilize furniture and floor from viral pandemics so the house pets of cats and dogs could return in our lives.

Sci.math is Gabriel's last stronghold where he wants to dominate 24-7-365, utter chaos and dissolution of sci.math, plunder, rape and pillage not seen since the extinction of the Dinosaurs in Cretaceous geological period where his degenerate 15 threads was first borne in a egg nest of Pterosaurus dactyl, (one can only with the dinosaur eggs had been made extinct, looking back in hindsight in 2021) is the first 15 posts every second of every day with the cheers from Zelos and Klyver to the tune of Waterloo my Dancing Queen, but needs to be bounced and kicked out, drop kicked from South Africa to Stockholm Sweden for their acting act is worse than a one star rating from spammers even the likes of dog-shit-on-cleats of gym shoe.

On Mon Aug 30 15:15:38 2021 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Simon Singh not as bad as Kevin Hartnett in brown-nosing, but both a mockery of science and math truth.
>
> Simon Singh not as bad as Kevin Hartnett in brown-nosing, but both a mockery of science and math truth. And Amazingly Simon prefers 150 pages of something he cannot understand over the simple fact of 2+2=2x2=4 while there is no N+N+N=NxNxN= M.

*
What you have proved, AP, is that you haven't the faintest idea of what a "proof" is.

earle
*

By the way, have you tried dropping a well-constructed ellipse into a cone? You might be surprised.

ej
*

Earle Jones> ☠️ Earle Jones with logo picture of him sucking on a cock of Math and 🕱 of Physics
> Earle Jones of Stanford Univ > blithered:

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:19:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> ☠️ Earle Jones with logo picture of him sucking on a cock of Math and 🕱 of Physics
> Earle Jones of Stanford Univ > blithered:

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:27:19 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> What Frederick Manners, have proved, James R. Milgram, is that Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, haven't the faintest idea of what a "proof" is.
>
> By the way, have Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Persis Drell tried dropping a well-constructed ellipse into a cone? David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh might be surprised.
>

On Friday, November 12, 2004 at 7:30:12 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> In article <nsDjd.19015$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Efftard K. Donglemeier" <hu...@humor.net> wrote:
>
> > Remember, the letters in "Archimedes Plutonium"
> > can be re-arranged to spell
> > "The Delicious Rump Man"
> > "I Pound His Male Rectum"
> > "Penis Could Mature Him"
> > "Old-Time U.S. Urine Champ"
> > and many other delightful phrases
> >
> > "Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plu...@iw.net> wrote in message
> > news:418E7777...@iw.net...
> > > I am an idiot.
>
> *
> Yes, Archy's name is very anagrammable.
>
> My favorite: Mr. Meticulous Pinhead.
>
> earle
> *

Stanford University, math dept.

Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu

President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
Provost: Persis Drell (physics)

Stanford physics dept.

Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian

On Saturday, December 19, 1998 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> In article <75fntt$b...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
> sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:
>
> >In <367a7e2c$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com> "MacMillan"
> ><theresal...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>"Archimedes Plutonium" anagram:
> >>
> >>"I am the purloined scum"
>
> --
>
> More anagrams:
>
> Archimedes Plutonium =
> SUPREME HOMICIDAL NUT
> MR. METICULOUS PINHEAD
> RECOMPUTED HIS ALUMNI
> IMPORT EUCLIDIAN MUSH
> POUND HEURISTIC LEMMA
> HILARIOUS CEMENT DUMP
> LUDICROUS HEMP INMATE
> MODULATES CHIMP URINE
> MULTI-MENU P-ADICS HERO
>
> ...enough?
>
> earle
> --
> __
> __/\_\
> /\_\/_/
> \/_/\_\ earle
> \/_/ jones
>

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 8:56:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🐸 Richard Denton, Robert A. Fesen, of Math and 🐢 of Physics Marcelo Gleiser, Ryan Hickox, Mary K. Hudson, Village Idiot"
>James William LaBelle, Kristina Anne Lynch, > fails at math and science:
> >
> So Dartmouth College need to see the fake Kibo Parry ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
>
>
>
> Some preliminaries:
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- <= x=h
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ <= x=0
>
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' <= x = h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed

Dartmouth College: Philip J. Hanlon, Joseph Helble, Asher Auel, Peter Doyle, Anne Gelb, Marcia Groszek, Ethan Levien, Peter J Mucha, Rosa C. Orellana, Scott D. Pauls, Daniel N. Rockmore, Thomas R. Shemanske, John, D Trout, Erik van Erp, John Voight, Dorothy I. Wallace, David L. Webb, Dana P. Williams, Peter Winkler
Miles P. Blencowe, Robert R. Caldwell, Brian Charles Chabover, Richard Denton, Robert A. Fesen, Marcelo Gleiser, Ryan Hickox, Mary K. Hudson, James William LaBelle, Kristina Anne Lynch, Robyn Millan, Hans Mueller, Elisabeth Newton, Roberto Onofrio, Alex Rimberg, Barrett N. Rogers, John R. Thorstensen, Lorenza Viola, Martin N. Wybourne, Joseph D. Harris, Walter E. Lawrence, David C. Montgomery, Gary Alan Wegner

AP writes: AP no longer tolerates Criminal Stalkers such as Kibo Parry M of 28 years nonstop, and shreds his attacks and spits them back into his lap.
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.

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)

🦎 of Math and 🐍 of Physics Archimedes "Drag Queen of Science"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> Earle Jones> ☠️ Earle Jones with logo picture of him sucking on a cock

Archie, we know you're gay and like to post your fantasies here, but
please stop trying to make this place into a gay pickup joint!

> On Friday, November 12, 2004 at 7:30:12 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
>> In article <nsDjd.19015$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
>> "Efftard K. Donglemeier" <hu...@humor.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Remember, the letters in "Archimedes Plutonium"
>>> can be re-arranged to spell
>>> "The Delicious Rump Man"
>>> "I Pound His Male Rectum"
>>> "Penis Could Mature Him"
>>> "Old-Time U.S. Urine Champ"
>>> and many other delightful phrases
>>>
>>> "Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plu...@iw.net> wrote in message
>>> news:418E7777...@iw.net...
>>>> I am an idiot.
>>
>> *
>> Yes, Archy's name is very anagrammable.
>>
>> My favorite: Mr. Meticulous Pinhead.
>>
>> earle
>> *
What's this? You want me to start posting more anagrams? You miss
them? OK!

The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Uh, Pandemic
mules riot".

Kibo Parry cover Wired M. Nick Thompson's>💩 for 🧠Earle Jones with logo picture of him sucking on a cock of Math and 🕱 of Physics
> > Earle Jones of Stanford Univ > blithered:
> 🦎 Jan Burse of Math and 🐍 Stanford Univ of Physics "Drag Queen of Science"
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:19:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > 💩 for 🧠Earle Jones with logo picture of him sucking on a cock of Math and 🕱 of Physics
> > Earle Jones of Stanford Univ > blithered:
>
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:27:19 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > What Frederick Manners, have proved, James R. Milgram, is that Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, haven't the faintest idea of what a "proof" is.
> >
> > By the way, have Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Persis Drell tried dropping a well-constructed ellipse into a cone? David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh might be surprised.
> >
>
> On Friday, November 12, 2004 at 7:30:12 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > In article <nsDjd.19015$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Efftard K. Donglemeier" <hu...@humor.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Remember, the letters in "Archimedes Plutonium"
> > > can be re-arranged to spell
> > > "The Delicious Rump Man"
> > > "I Pound His Male Rectum"
> > > "Penis Could Mature Him"
> > > "Old-Time U.S. Urine Champ"
> > > and many other delightful phrases
> > >
> > > "Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plu...@iw.net> wrote in message
> > > news:418E7777...@iw.net...
> > > > I am an idiot.
> >
> > *
> > Yes, Archy's name is very anagrammable.
> >
> > My favorite: Mr. Meticulous Pinhead.
> >
> > earle
> > *
>
> Stanford University, math dept.
>
> Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu
>
>
> President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
> Provost: Persis Drell (physics)
>
> Stanford physics dept.
>
> Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 19, 1998 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > In article <75fntt$b...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
> > sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:
> >
> > >In <367a7e2c$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com> "MacMillan"
> > ><theresal...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > >>
> > >>"Archimedes Plutonium" anagram:
> > >>
> > >>"I am the purloined scum"
> >
> > --
> >
> > More anagrams:
> >
> > Archimedes Plutonium =
> > SUPREME HOMICIDAL NUT
> > MR. METICULOUS PINHEAD
> > RECOMPUTED HIS ALUMNI
> > IMPORT EUCLIDIAN MUSH
> > POUND HEURISTIC LEMMA
> > HILARIOUS CEMENT DUMP
> > LUDICROUS HEMP INMATE
> > MODULATES CHIMP URINE
> > MULTI-MENU P-ADICS HERO
> >
> > ...enough?
> >
> > earle
> > --
> > __
> > __/\_\
> > /\_\/_/
> > \/_/\_\ earle
> > \/_/ jones
> >
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 8:56:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > 🐸 Richard Denton, Robert A. Fesen, of Math and 🐢 of Physics Marcelo Gleiser, Ryan Hickox, Mary K. Hudson, Village Idiot"
> >James William LaBelle, Kristina Anne Lynch, > fails at math and science:
> > >
> > So Dartmouth College need to see the fake Kibo Parry ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> >
> >
> >
> > Some preliminaries:
> >
> > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > in the proof:
> >
> > ^ x
> > |
> > -+- <= x=h
> > .' | `.
> > . | .
> > | | |
> > ' | '
> > `. | .'
> > y <----------+ <= x=0
> >
> > Cone (side view):
> > .
> > /|\
> > / | \
> > /b | \
> > /---+---' <= x = h
> > / |' \
> > / ' | \
> > / ' | \
> > x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> > / a | \
> >
> > Proof:
> >
> > r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
> >
> > y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> >
> > Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> >
> > qed
>
> Dartmouth College: Philip J. Hanlon, Joseph Helble, Asher Auel, Peter Doyle, Anne Gelb, Marcia Groszek, Ethan Levien, Peter J Mucha, Rosa C. Orellana, Scott D. Pauls, Daniel N. Rockmore, Thomas R. Shemanske, John, D Trout, Erik van Erp, John Voight, Dorothy I. Wallace, David L. Webb, Dana P. Williams, Peter Winkler
> Miles P. Blencowe, Robert R. Caldwell, Brian Charles Chabover, Richard Denton, Robert A. Fesen, Marcelo Gleiser, Ryan Hickox, Mary K. Hudson, James William LaBelle, Kristina Anne Lynch, Robyn Millan, Hans Mueller, Elisabeth Newton, Roberto Onofrio, Alex Rimberg, Barrett N. Rogers, John R. Thorstensen, Lorenza Viola, Martin N. Wybourne, Joseph D. Harris, Walter E. Lawrence, David C. Montgomery, Gary Alan Wegner
>
> AP writes: AP no longer tolerates Criminal Stalkers such as Kibo Parry M of 28 years nonstop, and shreds his attacks and spits them back into his lap.
> 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.
> 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)

Earle Jones, where is your dog logo picture, like Konyberg or Jan Burse. Spammers dogs are far prettier than the spammer himself.

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:27:19 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> is that you haven't the faintest idea of what a "proof" is.
>
> earle
> *
>
> By the way, have you tried dropping a well-constructed ellipse into a cone? You might be surprised.
>
> ej
> *

4-Sonja Currie, Witwatersrand,Margaret Archibald,Charlotte Brennan,Betsie Jonck, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
>
5> > > Frenchman Lacassagne 1885: "Every society has the criminals it deserves"
> > > > >
6 > > AP 2021: "Every University is _responsible_ for the filthy stalker or filthy spammer who attended that school and is now a insane nonstop gigolo stalker or g-strap thong spammer on Usenet". Most college professors are new to the age of internet and the responsibilities have not seeped into them as yet, that if they have a mindless spammer in their community, it is their responsibility to guide and direct that misplaced soul to a rightful venue to unleash his/her mind.
> > > > >
> > >8 > > AP 1990s: The Internet is new form of schooling with its openness, its publicity, and its international reach that College degrees in science can be passed out but also be made null & void if the beholder becomes an outrageous stalker & spammer of science on the Internet.
> 
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > 3> 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)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
78 > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > > > > > > Preface:
> > > > > > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > > > > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > > > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > > > > > Language: English
> > > > > > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > > > > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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

> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > > > > > John Carter
> > > > > > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > 99> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> >98 > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

Konyberg's dog allows Konyberg to post for his dog has a higher IQ than Konyberg.
Jan Burse's dog allows Jan to post under various names for his dog is a good master.

But Gabriel's dog is so ashamed of John Gabriel, that he does not show his photo.

Earle Jones, where is your dog logo picture, like Konyberg or Jan Burse. Spammers dogs are far prettier than the spammer himself.
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:27:19 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > is that you haven't the faintest idea of what a "proof" is.
> >
> > earle
> > *
> >
> > By the way, have you tried dropping a well-constructed ellipse into a cone? You might be surprised.
> >
> > ej
> > *
> 4-Sonja Currie, Witwatersrand,Margaret Archibald,Charlotte Brennan,Betsie Jonck, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> >
> 5> > > Frenchman Lacassagne 1885: "Every society has the criminals it deserves"
> > > > > >
> 6 > > AP 2021: "Every University is _responsible_ for the filthy stalker or filthy spammer who attended that school and is now a insane nonstop gigolo stalker or g-strap thong spammer on Usenet". Most college professors are new to the age of internet and the responsibilities have not seeped into them as yet, that if they have a mindless spammer in their community, it is their responsibility to guide and direct that misplaced soul to a rightful venue to unleash his/her mind.
> > > > > >
> > > >8 > > AP 1990s: The Internet is new form of schooling with its openness, its publicity, and its international reach that College degrees in science can be passed out but also be made null & void if the beholder becomes an outrageous stalker & spammer of science on the Internet.
> > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > 3> 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)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> 78 > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > > > > > > > Preface:
> > > > > > > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > > > > > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > > > > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > > > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > > > > > > Language: English
> > > > > > > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > > > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > > > > > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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

> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > > > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > > > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > > > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > > > > > > John Carter
> > > > > > > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > > > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > > > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > > > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > > > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > > > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > > > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > > > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > > > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > > > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > > > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > > > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > > > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > > > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > > > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > > > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > > > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > > > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > > > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > > > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > > > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > > > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > > > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > > > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > > > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > > > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > > > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > > > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > > > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > > > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > > > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > > > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > > > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > > > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > > > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > > > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > > > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > > > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > > > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > > > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > > > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > > > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > > > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > > > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > > > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > > > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > 99> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > >98 > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> My 245th published book of science.
>
>
> Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
>
> Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide. The last two operators of math are derivative and integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous breakdowns.. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has made math the worst science and filled with error.
>
>
> Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper. Those three dots after the numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0C9P5F755
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ June 27, 2023
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 530 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 116 pages

Can Dan Christensen's dog give Dan permission to put the dog picture in his logo spot, instead of the petty inane dc proof that looks like a plugged up toilet bowl? Or does Dan need to stay on his short leash?

Konyberg's dog is probably the smartest dog of the three, and can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

> Konyberg's dog allows Konyberg to post for his dog has a higher IQ than Konyberg.
> Jan Burse's dog allows Jan to post under various names for his dog is a good master.
>
> But Gabriel's dog is so ashamed of John Gabriel, that he does not show his photo.
> Earle Jones, where is your dog logo picture, like Konyberg or Jan Burse. Spammers dogs are far prettier than the spammer himself.
> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:27:19 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > is that you haven't the faintest idea of what a "proof" is.
> > >
> > > earle
> > > *
> > >
> > > By the way, have you tried dropping a well-constructed ellipse into a cone? You might be surprised.
> > >
> > > ej
> > > *
> > 4-Sonja Currie, Witwatersrand,Margaret Archibald,Charlotte Brennan,Betsie Jonck, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> > >
> > 5> > > Frenchman Lacassagne 1885: "Every society has the criminals it deserves"
> > > > > > >
> > 6 > > AP 2021: "Every University is _responsible_ for the filthy stalker or filthy spammer who attended that school and is now a insane nonstop gigolo stalker or g-strap thong spammer on Usenet". Most college professors are new to the age of internet and the responsibilities have not seeped into them as yet, that if they have a mindless spammer in their community, it is their responsibility to guide and direct that misplaced soul to a rightful venue to unleash his/her mind.
> > > > > > >
> > > > >8 > > AP 1990s: The Internet is new form of schooling with its openness, its publicity, and its international reach that College degrees in science can be passed out but also be made null & void if the beholder becomes an outrageous stalker & spammer of science on the Internet.
> > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3> 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)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > 78 > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > > > > > > > > Preface:
> > > > > > > > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > > > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > > > > > > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > > > > > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > > > > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > > > > > > > Language: English
> > > > > > > > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > > > > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > > > > > > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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

> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > > > > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > > > > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > > > > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > > > > > > > John Carter
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > > > > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > > > > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > > > > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > > > > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > > > > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > > > > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > > > > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > > > > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > > > > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > > > > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > > > > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > > > > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > > > > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > > > > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > > > > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > > > > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > > > > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > > > > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > > > > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > > > > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > > > > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > > > > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > > > > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > > > > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > > > > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > > > > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > > > > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > > > > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > > > > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > > > > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > > > > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > > > > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > > > > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > > > > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > > > > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > > > > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > > > > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > > > > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > > > > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > > > > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > > > > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > > > > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > 99> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > >98 > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > My 245th published book of science.
> >
> >
> > Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> >
> >
> > Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide. The last two operators of math are derivative and integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous breakdowns. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has made math the worst science and filled with error.
> >
> >
> > Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper.. Those three dots after the numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0C9P5F755
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ June 27, 2023
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 530 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 116 pages

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:09:24 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Can Dan Christensen [snip]

Time for another spanking, Archie Poo! When will you learn? Once again...

From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope of being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows?

In AP's OWN WORDS that, over the years here, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:

"Negative numbers are the witches and hobgoblins of insane kook mathematicians. "
--Dec. 7, 2022

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Updated version (repetition removed):

"Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as you are
How great thou are, are, are, are.
Oh Atom Plutonium, the God that you are
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
Oh Atom Plutonium, Great God of Atoms
Atom of Atoms
Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as thou art"
--March 24, 2023

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com