Cauchy was wicked in his "limit concept" and devised it only to put down his smartest students.

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 1:40:48 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 1:09:16 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > Stupid [stalkers] have "limit" bullshit seared in their syphilitic brains.
>
> On occasion John Gabriel lets loose with a nice poetic line, worthy of nomination to math awards by Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet of AMS who cannot do a geometry proof of FTC calculus nor can verify that their crank ellipse is really a oval in slant cut of cone.
>
> So if we take out the animal reference, for everyone should stop using animals in their ad hominem. But take out the animal reference, John has produced a nice line for a poem about mathematicians and their imbecilic love of "limits" where limits were nothing but a mindboggling hornswaggling nonsense that should never have existed. Limits in mathematics is akin to injecting voodoo witchcraft into science and math.

Sprinkle a little pixie dust limit here, sprinkle some pixie dust limit there and imps of mathematics of Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell think they proved Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, yet all they have done is make themselves foolish idiots of mathematics calculus.

The entire enterprise of "limit in mathematics" was because Cauchy, the fool he was, was sick and tired of hearing his smartest students, not the ones who want A's in class, but the real smart ones who want the truth of math. Those smart ones kept pressing Cauchy for an explanation of how the rectangle area of width goes to zero, yet still have internal area. So the cruel Cauchy came up with "limit concept" that he used as a weapon against the smart students. Whenever a smart student wanted to know how rectangle can still have area with width of 0, Cauchy would say " well, you just do not understand the limit concept".

Cauchy was wicked in not seeking the truth of mathematics calculus-- a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Of course, in New Math of AP, there never is a need for a mindless voodoo dance of a limit. And the next time you see a math professor in class using the "limit concept" picture him/her as some voodoo witchcraft medicine man/woman in 1490 in Africa dancing around some juju totem trying to heal a sick person, by sprinkling dust and chanting. For that is the value of "limit in mathematics", dust sprinkling on calculus.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

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

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 2:56:18 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium (AP) wrote:
> Cauchy was wicked in his "limit concept" and devised it only to put down his smartest students.
>

AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. 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.

Note that AP will often delete his bizarre and hateful postings when his lies are called out, only to repost identical ones moments later in a NEW thread.

Readers should, of course, judge for themselves. In AP's OWN WORDS here:

“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.”
--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]"
--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)

Dan

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

Bend over, err..Ted Hewitt, Francois-Philippe Champagne says 7 year long nonstop insane stalker Dan Christensen

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 10:24:19 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
>
> Dan

>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 underware at http://www.dcproof.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof. brown-streak press.com

Permanently banning Dan Christensen from sci.math & sci.physics// And the sacking of Canada's NSF Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt if found paying Dan to stalk Usenet.

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 7:13:24 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

Permanently banning Dan Christensen from sci.math & sci.physics// And the sacking of Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt if found paying Dan to stalk Usenet.

Examples of latest odious stalks by Kibo Parry M. who formed a gang of stalkers with Dan Christensen and many others.
On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 6:47:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> ☠️ Dr. Panchanathan of NSF of Math and 🕱 of Physics USA dept of Educ "anti math"

AP writes: AP puts every one of Kibo Parry M. stalker posts through the paper shredder and this is what comes out--

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 6:47:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> ☠️ Dr. Panchanathan of NSF of Math and 🕱 of Physics USA dept of Educ "anti math"
>National Science Foundation> fails at math and science:
>
> Fuckdog block spammer of "Dr. Panchanathan" is likely mentally ill
> I recommend banning him and his diseased cats from ever
> posting to sci.math & sci.physics //SCI.MATH FAQ
>
> Unfortunately, NSF and USA dept of Educ doesn't give a f about their Google Groups
> interface, so that will never happen.
>
> Everything you post is a mess.

Is NSF and USA dept of Educ ruining sci.math and sci.physics with their paying a $100 per post to a insane nonstop 28 year stalker of Kibo Parry M. Evidence suggests this is true.

Evidence in favor of Dan Christensen paid $100 per stalker attack posts by Canadian govt.

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NSF fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money $100 per stalker post-- Champagne,Hewitt,Crago
On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 2:17:31 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim

NSF fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money $100 per stalker post--

Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie
USA--NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley

Evidence that Dan Christensen never belonged in sci.math or sci.physics because he is total worthless failure of science.

Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.

The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 2 OR 1 = 3 and his AND as subtraction.

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>

Apparently Dan Christensen never took calculus or flunked it with this statement.
On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 8:57:54 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:32:51 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > The nonexistence of a curved angle because there is no way to measure the angle if either one of the rays is not a straightline segment at the vertex,
>
> From the derivative of each curve at the point of contact you have the slopes of their respective tangents there. (Assuming derivatives are defined there.) From these slopes, you should be able to calculate angle formed.
>
>
> Dan

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
10:24 PM (18 minutes ago)

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:15:39 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 11:56:18 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Cauchy was wicked in his "limit concept" and devised it only to put down his smartest students.

Why are all the loonies so fixated on this very simple concept? Why don't you debate the
Stiefel-Whitney characteristic classes for a change?

--
Jan

On Saturday, 4 September 2021 at 09:56:18 UTC+3, Crank Ludwig Poehlman aka Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Cauchy was wicked in his "limit concept" and devised it only to put down his smartest students.

Rubbish. He used it because he couldn't explain why calculus works. I was the first to reveal this knowledge to humanity.

Area is generally defined as the product of two arithmetic means.
Volume is generally defined as the product of three arithmetic means.

For this reason, there is no need for Riemann sums or similar nonsense.

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 5:24:51 AM UTC-4,I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 September 2021 at 09:56:18 UTC+3, Crank Ludwig Poehlman aka Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Cauchy was wicked in his "limit concept" and devised it only to put down his smartest students.
> Rubbish. He used it because he couldn't explain why calculus works. I was the first to reveal this knowledge to humanity.
>

Delusional crank JG here claims to have a discovered a shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!

Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require the use of axioms, so he must figure he's now off the hook. Again, what a moron!

Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Dan

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

Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:

> "There are no points on a line."

Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.

A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

> "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"

True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.

> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"

Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.

There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:

_ / _ _
_ _ / _ _ _ _

The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .

> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”

True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w

Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3

The true story of how we got numbers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU

No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc

There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU

> "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”

True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.

3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4

Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.

> "Zero is not a number."

True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM

> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

> “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!

https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w

https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg

> “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)

True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:

[f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)

And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)

The theorem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj

How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y

The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.

Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view

The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.

Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.

I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.

söndag 5 september 2021 kl. 17:34:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:
> > "There are no points on a line."
> Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.
>
> A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
> A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
> > "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
> True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.
> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
>
> There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:
>
> _ / _ _
> _ _ / _ _ _ _
>
> The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .
> > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
> True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
>
> Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3
>
> The true story of how we got numbers:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
>
> No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc
>
> There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
> > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
> True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
>
> 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
>
> Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.
> > "Zero is not a number."
> True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM
> > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
> Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.
> > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”
> True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!
>
> https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w
>
> https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg
> > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
> True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:
>
> [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)
>
> And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)
>
> The theorem:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
>
> How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
>
> The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.
>
> Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
>
> The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.
>
> Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.
>
> I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.

"f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)" is not a logical statement.

You are not a genius and you are not the greatest mathematician alive.

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 1:56:18 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Cauchy was wicked in his "limit concept" and devised it only to put down his smartest students.
>
> On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 1:40:48 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 1:09:16 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > Stupid [stalkers] have "limit" bullshit seared in their syphilitic brains.
> >
> > On occasion John Gabriel lets loose with a nice poetic line, worthy of nomination to math awards by Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet of AMS who cannot do a geometry proof of FTC calculus nor can verify that their crank ellipse is really a oval in slant cut of cone.
> >
> > So if we take out the animal reference, for everyone should stop using animals in their ad hominem. But take out the animal reference, John has produced a nice line for a poem about mathematicians and their imbecilic love of "limits" where limits were nothing but a mindboggling hornswaggling nonsense that should never have existed. Limits in mathematics is akin to injecting voodoo witchcraft into science and math.
>
> Sprinkle a little pixie dust limit here, sprinkle some pixie dust limit there and imps of mathematics of Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell think they proved Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, yet all they have done is make themselves foolish idiots of mathematics calculus.
>
> The entire enterprise of "limit in mathematics" was because Cauchy, the fool he was, was sick and tired of hearing his smartest students, not the ones who want A's in class, but the real smart ones who want the truth of math. Those smart ones kept pressing Cauchy for an explanation of how the rectangle area of width goes to zero, yet still have internal area. So the cruel Cauchy came up with "limit concept" that he used as a weapon against the smart students. Whenever a smart student wanted to know how rectangle can still have area with width of 0, Cauchy would say " well, you just do not understand the limit concept".
>
> Cauchy was wicked in not seeking the truth of mathematics calculus-- a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> Of course, in New Math of AP, there never is a need for a mindless voodoo dance of a limit. And the next time you see a math professor in class using the "limit concept" picture him/her as some voodoo witchcraft medicine man/woman in 1490 in Africa dancing around some juju totem trying to heal a sick person, by sprinkling dust and chanting. For that is the value of "limit in mathematics", dust sprinkling on calculus.
>
> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics

Of all the so called functions of Old Math, only one set of functions stands out-- polynomials, all the rest are what biologists would call synthethic fakery, like that of nylon, polyester and plastic packing. Only the polynomials are what biology would call true functions, the biodegradable.

Because it is easily noticed that all of Math Calculus, when only polynomials are admitted, just as only vaccinated persons are admitted, do we have a conquering of mathematics, do we have a conquering of a covid-19 pandemic.

Because, well, it is plain to see, only AP can teach Calculus in High School. Only AP can teach Calculus to Juniors of High School. Old Math is a joke with their voodoo witchcraft dance of a limit. Old Math devised the limit, because they had no proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, no proof at all, and so they devised their limit thinking that the sprinkle dust of a "limit concept" would mask over their mindless teaching that a 0 width rectangle is acceptable in having area.

No-one but AP by 2021 realizes Calculus is geometry, and thus, never has there been a proof of calculus FTC until AP's proof of 2015, where AP noticed that a rectangle as integral when taken a midpoint of one side and carved out a right triangle that is hinged up forming a trapezoid becomes the derivative. And hinged back down is the original integral rectangle.

AP's world's first geometry proof of Calculus fell on deaf and dumb ears in 2015 through 2021, mostly because there is huge amounts of money in teaching education and that boat or apple cart never wants any rocking, they always want the stable paycheck and not some rocking of the boat to have to fix anything, and for them money comes first, before the truth of science.

And AP's proof is a huge rocking of the boat or apple cart for it means that a true geometry proof of Calculus FTC causes all of these other items of Old Math be thrown out the window as trash fake math along with the "limit concept".

1) Reals are fake numbers for FTC needs discrete numbers of Decimal Grid Systems.

2) All functions are fake unless they are polynomial functions and anyone bringing us trigonometric or logarithmic or exponential or anything not a polynomial is sent back home to do their homework of converting their nasty b..s. into a polynomial function over a specified interval. There should be a sign over the halls of every college and university math department saying "Only Polynomials allowed as functions can pass through".

3) Mindboggling to know that math professors compared to physicists with their quantum mechanics of 1900 forward where 1 million times smarter than any and all math professors as they continued down the road of their insane "continuum" while the math professors were proving to the world that all of physics was "discrete" as is polynomials are discrete and as is AP's geometry proof of calculus is discrete. Yet the goonclods of math professors full speed ahead with Cohen on even more insane continuity and continuum.

4) AP has seen only one person in all of mathematics who has a mind that math is simple fun and easy to learn-- Harold Jacobs. And yet everyone else in mathematics that AP knows of is just the exact opposite of Harold Jacobs-- striving to make math difficult, incomprehensible, unteachable. For the direction of modern day math is college professors research is more important than teaching math and fame and fortune in stupid fake con-art proofs by Wiles, Hales, Tao, Stillwell, Ribet, are more important than the truth of mathematics.

5) The entire education system of Old Math is a pile of junk with professors that never had to take a course of formal logic and who could never really think straight and think clear, to begin with. For in 2015 AP also shows that the oval is the slant cut in cone not the ellipse and yet no-one in Old Math with the honesty of coming forward and admitting the truth of the conic oval slant cut. And no-one in Old Math able to admit that Boole got all his connectors wrong and muddle headed for 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction is an abomination of logic and math, yet Wiles, Hales, Tao, Stillwell, Ribet running around as if all is well in their fairy land of abominable math education.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

Let us summarize what is horribly bad about modern day math education, which should be called math nazi camp education.

Yes, of all the so called functions of Old Math, only one set of functions stands out-- polynomials, all the rest are what biologists would call synthethic fakery, like that of nylon, polyester and plastic packing. Only the polynomials are what biology would call true functions, the biodegradable.

Polynomials stand out, because if you ever study math calculus, you find there are 2 power rules that handle every one of the polynomial functions with ease and genuine fun in solving the product rule and the quotient rule. But did any bright and brilliant math professor from the time of Cauchy onward ever say-- hey look gals and guys, look, if all functions of math were just polynomials than all of Calculus is simple and easy to teach juniors in High School. No, the mindset of all math professors from Cauchy onwards is never thinking about students, never thinking about them, but thinking about how to get famous and rich (Tao, Wiles, Hales, Ribet, Pipher, Stillwell).. Never thinking-- how can we make math teachable; and how to make math fun.. Never a thought of that crosses the minds of Tao, Wiles, Hales, Ribet, Pipher, Stillwell. Their only thought is in cloud nine of fame fame fame.

For it is easily noticed that all of Math Calculus, when only polynomials are admitted, just as only vaccinated persons are admitted, do we have a conquering of mathematics, do we have a conquering of a covid-19 pandemic. And why not make math be the easiest of all the sciences, when that is possible, for surely if we admit only polynomials as functions, all of Calculus is as easy as add subtract multiply divide. But no, math professors spend their entire career in making themselves famous over some crank idea and piss on the classroom teaching.

For, well, it is plain to see, only AP can teach Calculus in High School. Only AP can teach Calculus to Juniors of High School. Old Math is a joke with their voodoo witchcraft dance of a limit. Old Math devised the limit, because they had no proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, no proof at all, and so they devised their limit thinking that the sprinkle dust of a "limit concept" would mask over their mindless teaching that a 0 width rectangle is acceptable in having area. And to think that any one in Old Math who accepts a logic of Boole of 2 OR 1 = 3, never realizing Boole screwed up on AND connector for its truth table is really TTTF and not what Boole said of TFFF. Does anyone think that a math professor who cannot understand Boole made that mistake, think that such a mindless math professor is going to admit he has no proof of FLT-- Andrew Wiles; he has no Kepler Packing Proof-- Thomas Hales; he has no number theory proof or Collatz lead-- Terence Tao; he has no elliptic curve theorem -- Ken Ribet. If a mind in math cannot even straighten out the logic they use to do math, then everything they produce is covered in faeces, not math.

There is no-one but AP by 2021 realizes Calculus is geometry, and thus, never has there been a proof of calculus FTC until AP's proof of 2015, where AP noticed that a rectangle as integral when taken a midpoint of one side and carved out a right triangle that is hinged up forming a trapezoid becomes the derivative. And hinged back down is the original integral rectangle.

For, AP's world's first geometry proof of Calculus fell on deaf and dumb ears in 2015 through 2021, mostly because there is huge amounts of money in teaching education and that boat or apple cart never wants any rocking, they always want the stable paycheck and not some rocking of the boat to have to fix anything, and for them money comes first, before the truth of science..

For, AP's proof is a huge rocking of the boat or apple cart for it means that a true geometry proof of Calculus FTC causes all of these other items of Old Math be thrown out the window as trash fake math along with the "limit concept".

1.) Reals are fake numbers for FTC needs discrete numbers of Decimal Grid Systems.

2.) All functions are fake unless they are polynomial functions and anyone bringing us trigonometric or logarithmic or exponential or anything not a polynomial is sent back home to do their homework of converting their nasty b.s. into a polynomial function over a specified interval. There should be a sign over the halls of every college and university math department saying "Only Polynomials allowed as functions can pass through".

3.) Mindboggling to know that math professors compared to physicists with their quantum mechanics of 1900 forward where 1 million times smarter than any and all math professors as they continued down the road of their insane "continuum" while the physics professors were proving to the world that all of physics was "discrete" as is polynomials are discrete and as is AP's geometry proof of calculus is discrete. Yet the goonclods of math professors full speed ahead with Cohen on even more insane continuity and continuum.

4.) AP has seen only one person in all of mathematics who has a mind that math is simple fun and easy to learn-- Harold Jacobs. And yet everyone else in mathematics that AP knows of is just the exact opposite of Harold Jacobs-- striving to make math difficult, incomprehensible, unteachable. For the direction of modern day math is college professors research is more important than teaching math and fame and fortune in stupid fake con-art proofs by Wiles, Hales, Tao, Stillwell, Ribet, are more important than the truth of mathematics.

5.) Why not make calculus as easy as possible. Why not make the only functions of math be polynomials so that calculus is just about two rules-- product and quotient rules, hence teachable in High School. Why not? Because the education system of science starting back with Newton fosters a system in which the math professor is not rewarded for education but rewarded for his kook expressions in research of crank and crackpot research-- Tao, Wiles, Hales, Stillwell, Ribet, Pipher. These fools of math education cannot even admit a oval is the slant cut in a cone.

6.) The entire education system of Old Math is a pile of junk with professors that never had to take a course of formal logic and who could never really think straight and think clear, to begin with. For in 2015 AP also shows that the oval is the slant cut in cone not the ellipse and yet no-one in Old Math with the honesty of coming forward and admitting the truth of the conic oval slant cut. And no-one in Old Math able to admit that Boole got all his connectors wrong and muddle headed for 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction is an abomination of logic and math, yet Wiles, Hales, Tao, Stillwell, Ribet running around as if all is well in their fairy land of abominable math education.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

söndag 5 september 2021 kl. 22:01:36 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 1:56:18 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Cauchy was wicked in his "limit concept" and devised it only to put down his smartest students.
> >
> > On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 1:40:48 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 1:09:16 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > Stupid [stalkers] have "limit" bullshit seared in their syphilitic brains.
> > >
> > > On occasion John Gabriel lets loose with a nice poetic line, worthy of nomination to math awards by Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet of AMS who cannot do a geometry proof of FTC calculus nor can verify that their crank ellipse is really a oval in slant cut of cone.
> > >
> > > So if we take out the animal reference, for everyone should stop using animals in their ad hominem. But take out the animal reference, John has produced a nice line for a poem about mathematicians and their imbecilic love of "limits" where limits were nothing but a mindboggling hornswaggling nonsense that should never have existed. Limits in mathematics is akin to injecting voodoo witchcraft into science and math.
> >
> > Sprinkle a little pixie dust limit here, sprinkle some pixie dust limit there and imps of mathematics of Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell think they proved Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, yet all they have done is make themselves foolish idiots of mathematics calculus.
> >
> > The entire enterprise of "limit in mathematics" was because Cauchy, the fool he was, was sick and tired of hearing his smartest students, not the ones who want A's in class, but the real smart ones who want the truth of math. Those smart ones kept pressing Cauchy for an explanation of how the rectangle area of width goes to zero, yet still have internal area. So the cruel Cauchy came up with "limit concept" that he used as a weapon against the smart students. Whenever a smart student wanted to know how rectangle can still have area with width of 0, Cauchy would say " well, you just do not understand the limit concept".
> >
> > Cauchy was wicked in not seeking the truth of mathematics calculus-- a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> >
> > Of course, in New Math of AP, there never is a need for a mindless voodoo dance of a limit. And the next time you see a math professor in class using the "limit concept" picture him/her as some voodoo witchcraft medicine man/woman in 1490 in Africa dancing around some juju totem trying to heal a sick person, by sprinkling dust and chanting. For that is the value of "limit in mathematics", dust sprinkling on calculus.
> >
> > AP
> > King of Science, especially Physics
> Of all the so called functions of Old Math, only one set of functions stands out-- polynomials, all the rest are what biologists would call synthethic fakery, like that of nylon, polyester and plastic packing. Only the polynomials are what biology would call true functions, the biodegradable.
>
> Because it is easily noticed that all of Math Calculus, when only polynomials are admitted, just as only vaccinated persons are admitted, do we have a conquering of mathematics, do we have a conquering of a covid-19 pandemic.
>
> Because, well, it is plain to see, only AP can teach Calculus in High School. Only AP can teach Calculus to Juniors of High School. Old Math is a joke with their voodoo witchcraft dance of a limit. Old Math devised the limit, because they had no proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, no proof at all, and so they devised their limit thinking that the sprinkle dust of a "limit concept" would mask over their mindless teaching that a 0 width rectangle is acceptable in having area.
>
> No-one but AP by 2021 realizes Calculus is geometry, and thus, never has there been a proof of calculus FTC until AP's proof of 2015, where AP noticed that a rectangle as integral when taken a midpoint of one side and carved out a right triangle that is hinged up forming a trapezoid becomes the derivative. And hinged back down is the original integral rectangle.
>
> AP's world's first geometry proof of Calculus fell on deaf and dumb ears in 2015 through 2021, mostly because there is huge amounts of money in teaching education and that boat or apple cart never wants any rocking, they always want the stable paycheck and not some rocking of the boat to have to fix anything, and for them money comes first, before the truth of science.
>
> And AP's proof is a huge rocking of the boat or apple cart for it means that a true geometry proof of Calculus FTC causes all of these other items of Old Math be thrown out the window as trash fake math along with the "limit concept".
>
> 1) Reals are fake numbers for FTC needs discrete numbers of Decimal Grid Systems.
>
> 2) All functions are fake unless they are polynomial functions and anyone bringing us trigonometric or logarithmic or exponential or anything not a polynomial is sent back home to do their homework of converting their nasty b.s. into a polynomial function over a specified interval. There should be a sign over the halls of every college and university math department saying "Only Polynomials allowed as functions can pass through".
>
> 3) Mindboggling to know that math professors compared to physicists with their quantum mechanics of 1900 forward where 1 million times smarter than any and all math professors as they continued down the road of their insane "continuum" while the math professors were proving to the world that all of physics was "discrete" as is polynomials are discrete and as is AP's geometry proof of calculus is discrete. Yet the goonclods of math professors full speed ahead with Cohen on even more insane continuity and continuum.
>
> 4) AP has seen only one person in all of mathematics who has a mind that math is simple fun and easy to learn-- Harold Jacobs. And yet everyone else in mathematics that AP knows of is just the exact opposite of Harold Jacobs-- striving to make math difficult, incomprehensible, unteachable. For the direction of modern day math is college professors research is more important than teaching math and fame and fortune in stupid fake con-art proofs by Wiles, Hales, Tao, Stillwell, Ribet, are more important than the truth of mathematics.
>
> 5) The entire education system of Old Math is a pile of junk with professors that never had to take a course of formal logic and who could never really think straight and think clear, to begin with. For in 2015 AP also shows that the oval is the slant cut in cone not the ellipse and yet no-one in Old Math with the honesty of coming forward and admitting the truth of the conic oval slant cut. And no-one in Old Math able to admit that Boole got all his connectors wrong and muddle headed for 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction is an abomination of logic and math, yet Wiles, Hales, Tao, Stillwell, Ribet running around as if all is well in their fairy land of abominable math education.
> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics
What about the function f(x)=1/x?

On Sunday, 5 September 2021 at 18:37:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 5 september 2021 kl. 17:34:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > Anonymous coward and king troll of sci.math Dan Christensen spammed:
> > > "There are no points on a line."
> > Lie. I never said that. What I did say is that a line does not consists of points. When we talk about points on a line, we really mean distances that are indicated much like road signs do for distances travelled along a road.
> >
> > A line is one of innumerable distances between any two points.
> > A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
> > > "Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
> > True. Pi is merely a symbol for an incommensurable magnitude - apparently a concept too advanced for an imbecile like Dan Christensen.
> > > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> > Lie. I have NEVER said this. What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> > What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> > 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
> >
> > There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4.. For example:
> >
> > _ / _ _
> > _ _ / _ _ _ _
> >
> > The length _ is not equal to the length _ _ .
> > > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
> > True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> >
> > Also, my article on pi not being a number of any kind:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFg_9XCkIwTZ9N1jbU4oMYfHHHuFHYf3
> >
> > The true story of how we got numbers:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> >
> > No such thing as a "real number" or a "real number line":
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLMHVYcE8xcmRZRnc
> >
> > There is no valid construction of "real number" - it's a myth:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
> > > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
> > True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
> >
> > 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
> >
> > Actually, there is no "OR" part, so the logical disjunction is invalid.
> > > "Zero is not a number."
> > True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2tt7IgoIu-ychDCoYi-4jOAzToy0ViM
> > > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
> > Half-truth. While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.
> > > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”
> > True. Even the father of all mainstream mathematical cranks rejected the idea of empty set. But let's not go too far ... there isn't even a definition of "set" in set theory!
> >
> > https://youtu.be/KvxjOMW6Q9w
> >
> > https://youtu.be/1CcSsOG0okg
> > > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
> > True. These are propositions that are implied by the given equations. For example, my historic geometric identity states:
> >
> > [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = dy/dx + Q(x,h)
> >
> > And so, f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)
> >
> > The theorem:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> >
> > How it provides a rigorous definition of integral for the flawed mainstream calculus:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> >
> > The day will come when this vicious anonymous troll Dan Christensen is convicted in a court of law.
> >
> > Download for free the most important mathematics book ever written:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CIul68phzuOe6JZwsCuBuXUR8X-AkgEO/view
> >
> > The New Calculus is proof that you CAN DO calculus without the use of LIMIT THEORY.
> >
> > Don't believe me? Study it. You will be pleasantly surprised.
> >
> > I am a genius and the greatest mathematician alive today.
> "f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)" is not a logical statement.

You're just proving that you are a retard every time you repeat this gibberish.

"f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)" is indeed a logical statement.

The slope of some non-parallel secant line (f(x+h)-f(x)]/h) implies that it differs from the slope of the tangent line (dy/dx) by a difference Q(x,h).

The sum of the slope of the tangent line (dy/dx) and a difference Q(x,h) implies that it is the slope of a non-parallel secant line f(x+h)-f(x)]/h.

>
>
> You are not a genius and you are not the greatest mathematician alive.

Chuckle. I piss and shit on you.

Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Sunday, 5 September 2021 at 18:37:19 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
....
> "f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)" is indeed a logical statement.

Definitely not, "42 <=> 42" is not either.

> The slope of some non-parallel secant line (f(x+h)-f(x)]/h) implies that it differs from the slope of the tangent line (dy/dx) by a difference Q(x,h).

Which expresses nothing more than (in plain English):

"This and that, depending respectively on x and h and x can be different
and the difference depends on x and h"

You claim to deserve a Field Medal for such an empty statement? Een if
true, it is in no way specific to anything, let alone f'(x)

> The sum of the slope of the tangent line (dy/dx) and a difference Q(x,h) implies that it is the slope of a non-parallel secant line f(x+h)-f(x)]/h.

The sum of <whatever> and a difference Q(x,h) implies that it is the
<whatever>. Sigh...

>
> Chuckle. I piss and shit on you.

You only activity, John, is about pissing and shitting on yourself in
public.

On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 02:20:55 UTC+3, Psychopath Jean Pierre Messager aka YBM aka JPM aka Python wrote:

> > "f(x+h)-f(x)]/h <=> dy/dx + Q(x,h)" is indeed a logical statement.

> Definitely not, "42 <=> 42" is not either.

Does 42 <=> 0 ? You vile, lying, pathetic piece of shit! Of course, 42 <=> 42 is a logical statement and even if it were hypothetically not, it does not affect my theorem in any way whatsoever. It's irrelevant bullshit.

JG: The slope of some non-parallel secant line (f(x+h)-f(x)]/h) implies that it differs from the slope of the tangent line (dy/dx) by a difference Q(x,h).

which is plain English. LMAO

<shit>

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 11:34:00 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:
> Anonymous...

> > "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> Lie. I have NEVER said this.

A direct quote from October 22, 2017 here at sci.math

> What I have talked about is the difference in the process of measure.
> What does this mean? Well, 1/2 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 1 of two equal parts of the unit.
> 2/4 is the name given to a measure done by enumerating 2 of four equal parts of the unit.
>
> There is the case in geometry where 1/2 is not necessarily equal to 2/4. For example:
>

When will you learn, Troll Boy? 1/2 is ALWAYS EQUAL to 2/4.

[snip]

> > “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
> True. My brilliant article on how a genius mind discovers number and indeed how my brilliant ancestors (Ancient Greeks) realised number explains in detail...

If you can't dazzle them brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, right, Troll Boy?

> > "3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
> True. In mathematics, it is called an invalid disjunction.
>
> 3 <= 4 means EITHER 3 < 4 OR 3 = 4
>

Since 3 < 4, it is true that 3 < 4 or 3 = 4 even though 3 =4 is false. Nothing "invalid" about it, Troll Boy.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_disjunction_(OR)

[snip]

> > "Zero is not a number."
> True. While not a number of any kind, it is very useful in mathematics.
>

It really is a number, Troll Boy. Deal with it.

> > "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."

> Half-truth.

Nope. Completely false. Both 0 and negative numbers are required in mathematics.

> While negative numbers are not required in mathematics, they are extremely useful.

<yawn!>

> > “There is no such thing as an empty set.”

> True.

Umm... What about the set of all your brilliant mathematical discoveries? Empty.

[snip]

> > “3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions”

> True.

Nope. The biconditional is logical connective. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_biconditional

3 is not a statement that is true or false. 3 is a number. So 3 <=> 2+1 would be an error in syntax. Deal with it, Troll Boy.

[snip]

> > Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Also, all direct quotes from you, Troll Boy. To the extent that you will be remembered at all, history will not be kind to you. Time to cut your losses and move on Troll Boy.

Dan

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

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

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 4:48:03 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium (AP) wrote:
> Let us summarize what is horribly bad about social media trolls like AP....

AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. 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.

Note that AP will often delete his bizarre and hateful postings when his lies are called out, only to repost identical ones moments later in a NEW thread.

Readers should, of course, judge for themselves. In AP's OWN WORDS here:

“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.”
--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]"
--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)

Dan

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

Bend over, err..Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie says 7 year long nonstop insane stalker Dan Christensen

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 5:36:06 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Justin Trudeau, Ted Hewitt, Sophie Gregoire, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie, Linda Hasenfratz, James Leech, Rose M Patten

Bend over, err...Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard says 7 year long nonstop insane stalker Dan Christensen

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 10:24:19 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
>
> Dan

>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 underware at http://www.dcproof.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof. brown-streak press.com

Permanently banning Dan Christensen from sci.math & sci.physics// And the sacking of Canada's NSF Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt if found paying Dan to stalk Usenet.

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 7:13:24 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

Permanently banning Dan Christensen from sci.math & sci.physics// And the sacking of Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt if found paying Dan to stalk Usenet.

Examples of latest odious stalks by Kibo Parry M. who formed a gang of stalkers with Dan Christensen and many others.
On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 6:47:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> ☠️ Dr. Panchanathan of NSF of Math and 🕱 of Physics USA dept of Educ "anti math"

AP writes: AP puts every one of Kibo Parry M. stalker posts through the paper shredder and this is what comes out--

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 6:47:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> ☠️ Dr. Panchanathan of NSF of Math and 🕱 of Physics USA dept of Educ "anti math"
>National Science Foundation> fails at math and science:
>
> Fuckdog block spammer of "Dr. Panchanathan" is likely mentally ill
> I recommend banning him and his diseased cats from ever
> posting to sci.math & sci.physics //SCI.MATH FAQ
>
> Unfortunately, NSF and USA dept of Educ doesn't give a f about their Google Groups
> interface, so that will never happen.
>
> Everything you post is a mess.

Is NSF and USA dept of Educ ruining sci.math and sci.physics with their paying a $100 per post to a insane nonstop 28 year stalker of Kibo Parry M. Evidence suggests this is true.

Evidence in favor of Dan Christensen paid $100 per stalker attack posts by Canadian govt.

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NSF fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money $100 per stalker post-- Champagne,Hewitt,Crago
On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 2:17:31 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim

NSF fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money $100 per stalker post--

Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie
USA--NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley

Evidence that Dan Christensen never belonged in sci.math or sci.physics because he is total worthless failure of science.

Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.

The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 2 OR 1 = 3 and his AND as subtraction.

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>

Apparently Dan Christensen never took calculus or flunked it with this statement.
On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 8:57:54 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:32:51 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > The nonexistence of a curved angle because there is no way to measure the angle if either one of the rays is not a straightline segment at the vertex,
>
> From the derivative of each curve at the point of contact you have the slopes of their respective tangents there. (Assuming derivatives are defined there.) From these slopes, you should be able to calculate angle formed.
>
>
> Dan

NSF fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money $100 per stalker post-- Champagne,Hewitt,Crago
On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 2:17:31 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim

NSF fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money $100 per stalker post--

Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie
USA--NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
10:24 PM (18 minutes ago)

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of