Linda Hasenfratz's Univ Western Ontario analbuttfuckmanure school of stalking by 8 year long nonstop 24-7-365 stalker Dan Christensen.

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 11:14:45 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim

Apparently Univ. Western Ontario Linda Hasenfratz, Amit Chakma along with Univ Toronto's Rose M. Patten, Meric Gertler and R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R. Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong, Alan Shepard, Gordon Sinnamon, Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Graham Denham Nicole Lemire

would rather pay Dan Christensen another salary for stalking 24-7-365 for 6 years, rather than teach the truth about mathematics or physics or science-- Math needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a Cauchy limit whitewash. Math needs true logic, not the filthy mind-rot that Dan Christensen pushes with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1.

And that Logic needs to recognize Boole was all mixed up in error with AND and with the OR. Because Boole Logic reduces to 10 OR 2 =12 with AND as subtraction. Boole was too dumb in logic to recognize AND is always true under the mechanism that if just one statement is true in a series of statements, the entire lot is true, with truth table TTTF, not stupid Boole's TFFF.

And that Thomson in 1897 mixed up the 0.5MeV particle as the electron of atoms when it is only the Dirac Magnetic Monopole. The real true electron is the muon in this world, and is lodged and trapped inside a proton torus of 840MeV doing the Faraday law.

But the joys and truth of Science is lost on a mindless Canadian administration of education, which seems to insist on keep on teaching falsity and errors of science. Who rather ruin the minds of youngsters in science, than make the effort to correct mistakes of the past and start teaching True Science.

It is apparent that Linda Hasenfratz and Rose M. Patten wishes to keep Dan Christensen a front page bully in sci.math with his stalking and endless sheet of hatred.

On Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 3:41:46 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

I used to think Canada was mostly nice and friendly people, but with Dan Christensen, there is something disturbingly wrong in Canada that they keep this insane nutball bully in sci.math.

Univ of Western Ontario along with Toronto University apparently favors stalkers rather than teachers of science truth.

Here is an example of where Dan Christensen seems to act out his classroom fantasies, and whether he is a threat to students along with being a bully in sci.math.

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 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

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

AP writes: well I guess at least two Canadian schools of higher education never wants to change to the truth of science, where they teach logic of 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction. And teach that a ellipse is a slant cut in a single cone when really that is a oval. And no-one at these two Canadian Universities even able to fathom that the real electron is the muon of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, nor able to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Oh, sure, everyone in the math dept of UT and UWO knows calculus is geometry, but the fools never wanting to wean themselves off of a con artist scam that is "limit analysis". You see, "limits" were invented by the Frenchman Cauchy back in 1800s, and Cauchy was sick and tired of hearing from his smartest students, that Cauchy was summing up zero width rectangles. So instead of Cauchy being a "real mathematician" and looking for a geometry proof, no, Cauchy invented a con artist trick called "limits" and ever since Cauchy, the professors of mathematics such as Harvard math professors have been con artists of math, and not teachers of math.

Under Linda Hasenfratz and Rose M. Patten of Canada, they continue to hold back the truth of science, and brainwashes the young with the horrible errors that is Dan Christensen bully stalker of anti-science.

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 14Mar2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum. Sad that starting 1900, Planck showed that Space is discrete in physics, not continuous, leading to the rise of Quantum Mechanics. But the fools of mathematics went the opposite direction in wanting ever more a continuum in mathematics. They spent the entire 20th century riding high on Cohen's depraved continuum. You could almost say that starting 1900, the people in mathematics compared to those in physics would become more and more ignorant and further estranged, and that a widening schism rift separated math from physics, from the realities of the actual world as the future centuries rolled by. And who knows where this rift would leave math as a decreasing vim and vigor of math. Will it end in math becoming a third or fourth tier science, ranking it above say economics but far below even psychology, because much of math proof is kook psychology acceptance divorced of reality. In this view, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, even geology ranked far higher in power and wisdom than math. We all know that the hard sciences have as their "final judge of truth value" have experiments to prove one way or the other. And that mathematics never had this hard core truth value of judge linked with the rest of the experiential world at large, no, what math had as judge is "other mathematicians chiming in and saying-- that is good, but only good because each of them will get more money and fame". And obviously a judging of truth or falsity by a country club of mathematicians is never really a good judge at all. Because often, the kook who is pushing something in math, can easily find a country club of kooks to judge his work as true when in reality it is hideously wrong. Take the example of the slant cut in a single cone started by Apollonius in Ancient Greek times, where he declared it was a ellipse when in truth, over 2,000 years later, AP would discover it is really a oval, never the ellipse. Apollonius never actually took a cone model of a folded up paper placing a circle lid inside and seeing that the circle when tilted leaves a crescent shape gap-- a oval. You need a slant cut in the cylinder to get a ellipse. So in that lesson of oval, we can see that mathematics is mostly a kook judgement call, unlike physics such as in 1989 or thereabouts, a pair of electrochemists declared they had found fusion in a test tube using palladium. Only thing was, the judge of physics is not more kooks like it is in mathematics. The judge in physics is --- experiment and experiment --- and 10 years later after 1989, experiments declared that Pons and Fleischmann were wrong. Math never had that experiment-judge, math always had a country club of kooks chiming in agreement that something in math is good or is bad. Because math has no foundation in experience of a experimental world? Meaning, math is more of kook philosophy, more of imagination and ideas not concrete to be tested in a reality based world. Physics is a reality-experience-science and grounded in reality by doing experiments, not the imagination gone wild by a band of kooks out for fame, more money and fortune.