3-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.

Do we need to include silly stupid news reporters who help jettison the crackpot cranks of Andrew Wiles, Terry Tao onto front stage of world's attention even though they are abject failures of mathematics itself, but the publicity is what gives them spotlight, fame and fortune, yet they undermine and destroy the real truth of science and math. I suppose we should start to publicize the sideshow freaks and creeps who propell and jettison the con-artists of math-- Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, John Baez, Ken Ribet, Jill Pipher, all so silly in math they still preach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction of the error filled Boole logic. Yet these mindless idiots of math are given Fields and other medals.

Dan Christensen says do not be a victim of Andrew Wiles who knows a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry and a cone just 1 axis of symmetry so the Oval is the slant cut in cone for it also has just 1 axis of symmetry, but that mindless wreck of a fool Andrew Wiles still preaches the ellipse is the conic slant cut. His worthless math can be seen in his attempted proof of Fermat's Last Theorem where the true proof of FLT is AP's simple idea of unit vector calculus of a number that is the same in addition as it is in multiplication, building solutions to the Pythagorean theorem, but no solutions in exponents higher than 2, all because 2+2=2x2=4 and no N+N+N = NxNxN = M, but try telling that to a con-artist failure Andrew Wiles, the crank crackpot of mathematics.

Dan says, do not be a victim of anti-science Justin Trudeau and Linda Hasenfratz and Rose M. Patten with their 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction for Justin et al love teaching dogma that is never corrected of mistakes.
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 9:13:07 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

Question Dan, is it Dunning-Kruger disease that plagues John Baez, for he knows a cone has 1 axis of symmetry and the oval has one axis of symmetry, so Dan, why cannot the fool, silly fool of John Baez ever admit you cannot get a symmetry of 2 axes out of a cone of 1 axis of symmetry. Is it that John has breathed so much air pollution in California and become dumbnified that it is hard for John to even remember his name let alone mathematics. What say you Dan Christensen the Canadian insane stalker?

AP> Does John Baez and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet suffer from Dunning-Kruger disease of psychology-- where they overestimate their abilities in math-- knowing the cone has 1 axis of symmetry, yet John, Jill & Ken still thinks 1 axis can yield a ellipse of 2 axes of symmetry in a slant cut. I think John, Jill & Ken are smarter than Dan Christensen with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, or, Kibo Parry M with his 938 is 12% short of 945, but not much smarter than Kibo Parry for both believe the slant cut in cone is a ellipse, when the truth be known, it is a Oval for the oval, like the cone has 1 axis of symmetry.
>
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Aug 27, 2021, 11:07:58 AM
> to sci.math
>
> Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone, for otherwise, he would have said something by now 2016-2021.
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> > Why don't you buy this kind of stuff that will show you that
> > you didn't do the experiment right?
> >
> > https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/595178906992508262/
> >
> > Moreover that a slant cut in a cylinder shows an ellipse does not
> > contradict that some slant cuts in a cone shows an ellipse also.
>
> AP writes: no wonder that AP's discovery that Cone slant cut is an Oval never the ellipse is because everyone in math community other than AP thinks a cone has 2 axes of symmetry, just the same as a cylinder has 2 axis of symmetry.
>
> I have heard of color blindness where you fail to see certain wavelengths of color, and guess that in mathematics, now, we have to test students and teachers for axis blindness.
>
>
> Python wrote:
> Aug 27, 2021, 11:14:47 AM
> to sci.math
> Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium a écrit :
> >
> > Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone
>
> A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse.
>
> You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
> fool of yourself.
>
> Python wrote:
> Aug 27, 2021, 11:41:04 AM
> to sci.math
> Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:14:47 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> >> Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone
> >> A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse..
> >>
> Python>> You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
> Python>> fool of yourself.
> >
> AP> a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, so how do you get a figure with 2
> AP> axes of symmetry from a cone of 1 axis of symmetry
>
> Python>watch it there:
> Python>https://www.youtube.com
>
> AP writes: Does Terence Tao, Jill Pipher & Ken Ribet and Python (possibly Terry Tao in disguise) have Dunning-Kruger effect disability? Wikipedia describes it as "internal illusion in people of low ability". In this case mathematics, that Terry Tao has low ability in math and so misperceives the Cone as 1 axes of symmetry and then deludes himself that a 2 axes of symmetry can be gotten with a slant cut in cone to yield ellipse. Whereas AP was always a straight and narrow on cue scientist, knowing that the cone of 1 axes could never yield a ellipse of 2 axes , no, for AP that slant cut could only yield another figure of 1 axes of symmetry-- the Oval.
>
> The follies and blunders of Dan Christensen, the mighty Canadian oaf of logic and math. Of course his most insane and twisted offering is his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, believing in Boole logic even when Boole screwed up royally in his AND connector truth table of TFFF when in reality it is TTTF, making a mockery of the Either..Or..Or..Both that is a insane self contradiction, yet all logicians of today and past still preach this error ridden nonsense of logic. But Dan is caught often with his mindless pronouncements in sci.math, such as these two incidents.
>
> 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.
> 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
>
>
>
> It has been known by AP that another clear case example of Dunning Kruger disease and mental disorder is the stalker Kibo Parry M. where he posts every day of the year almost for 28 years to sci.math when that insane koot cannot even do a percentage with his 938 is 12% short of 945.
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
> And his continued stalk spam of a another posters mindless talk of some notes he took, a garbled nonsense mess--
> kibo>Here is a plane and cone
> x + 1 = z
> and
> 2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = z^2
> >
> kibo>Square the first equation giving us
> x^2 + 2*x + 1 = z^2
> >
> kibo>In the second equation replace z^2 with x^2 + 2*x + 1 giving us
> 2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = x^2 + 2*x + 1
> >
> kibo>Subtract x^2 + 2*x - 1 from both sides giving us
> x^2 - 2*x + 1 + 2*y^2 = 2
> >
> kibo>Replace x^2 - 2*x + 1 with (x-1)^2 giving us
> (x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2
> >
> kibo>That is EXACTLY the equation of an ellipse
> And there are two planes of symmetry.
> >
> kibo>No matter how you tilt or rotate an ellipse it
> REMAINS an ellipse and has TWO PLANES of symmetry,
> just like the intersection of a plane and cylinder
> remains an ellipse no matter what the slope of the
> plane is.
> >
>
> AP writes: 7 years of stalker shithead Dan Christensen and 28 years of a shithead Kibo Parry M, unloading a wade of crap in every AP thread that AP was doing solid math and physics, such as the above, and no-one kicks the insane stalker Kibo Parry M out of sci.math and sci.physics.
>
> AP writes: well in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry M has more to worry about than Dunning Kruger disease of his mental health, because in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry is a insane person, all stalkers are insane people and as a stalker, not even a human being, no longer a human being but melting away in insanity. For 28 years now, the insane arsewipe Kibo Parry M.. has made no contribution to sci.math but to hate spew everyone he stalks. Get the straightjacket in emergency ambulance for Kibo Parry M size XXSmall.
>
> So, well is the world being Dumbnificated by the fossil fuel burning discharging tonnes and tonnes of toxic chemicals into the air every minute of the day, and that CO2 itself comes in several isomers where the Fire-CO2, not the Animal-CO2 isomer (see my chemistry books) is especially harmful to Humans thinking abilities especially logical thinking. So that John Baez, Terence Tao and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet could no longer reason, reason that if a cone has 1 axis of symmetry, no way in hell is a slant cut into a 1 axis symmetry cone going to yield a 2 axes symmetry ellipse. No way in hell, but the cut will release a 1 axis symmetry Oval.
>
> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics

Do we need to include silly stupid news reporters who help jettison the crackpot cranks of Andrew Wiles, Terry Tao onto front stage of world's attention even though they are abject failures of mathematics itself, but the publicity is what gives them spotlight, fame and fortune, yet they undermine and destroy the real truth of science and math. I suppose we should start to publicize the sideshow freaks and creeps who propell and jettison the con-artists of math-- Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, John Baez, Ken Ribet, Jill Pipher, all so silly in math they still preach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction of the error filled Boole logic. Yet these mindless idiots of math are given Fields and other medals.

Dan Christensen says do not be a victim of Andrew Wiles who knows a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry and a cone just 1 axis of symmetry so the Oval is the slant cut in cone for it also has just 1 axis of symmetry, but that mindless wreck of a fool Andrew Wiles still preaches the ellipse is the conic slant cut. His worthless math can be seen in his attempted proof of Fermat's Last Theorem where the true proof of FLT is AP's simple idea of unit vector calculus of a number that is the same in addition as it is in multiplication, building solutions to the Pythagorean theorem, but no solutions in exponents higher than 2, all because 2+2=2x2=4 and no N+N+N = NxNxN = M, but try telling that to a con-artist failure Andrew Wiles, the crank crackpot of mathematics.

Dan says, do not be a victim of anti-science Justin Trudeau and Linda Hasenfratz and Rose M. Patten with their 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction for Justin et al love teaching dogma that is never corrected of mistakes.
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 9:13:07 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

Question Dan, is it Dunning-Kruger disease that plagues John Baez, for he knows a cone has 1 axis of symmetry and the oval has one axis of symmetry, so Dan, why cannot the fool, silly fool of John Baez ever admit you cannot get a symmetry of 2 axes out of a cone of 1 axis of symmetry. Is it that John has breathed so much air pollution in California and become dumbnified that it is hard for John to even remember his name let alone mathematics. What say you Dan Christensen the Canadian insane stalker?

AP> Does John Baez and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet suffer from Dunning-Kruger disease of psychology-- where they overestimate their abilities in math-- knowing the cone has 1 axis of symmetry, yet John, Jill & Ken still thinks 1 axis can yield a ellipse of 2 axes of symmetry in a slant cut. I think John, Jill & Ken are smarter than Dan Christensen with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, or, Kibo Parry M with his 938 is 12% short of 945, but not much smarter than Kibo Parry for both believe the slant cut in cone is a ellipse, when the truth be known, it is a Oval for the oval, like the cone has 1 axis of symmetry.
>
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Aug 27, 2021, 11:07:58 AM
> to sci.math
>
> Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone, for otherwise, he would have said something by now 2016-2021.
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> > Why don't you buy this kind of stuff that will show you that
> > you didn't do the experiment right?
> >
> > https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/595178906992508262/
> >
> > Moreover that a slant cut in a cylinder shows an ellipse does not
> > contradict that some slant cuts in a cone shows an ellipse also.
>
> AP writes: no wonder that AP's discovery that Cone slant cut is an Oval never the ellipse is because everyone in math community other than AP thinks a cone has 2 axes of symmetry, just the same as a cylinder has 2 axis of symmetry.
>
> I have heard of color blindness where you fail to see certain wavelengths of color, and guess that in mathematics, now, we have to test students and teachers for axis blindness.
>
>
> Python wrote:
> Aug 27, 2021, 11:14:47 AM
> to sci.math
> Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium a écrit :
> >
> > Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone
>
> A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse.
>
> You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
> fool of yourself.
>
> Python wrote:
> Aug 27, 2021, 11:41:04 AM
> to sci.math
> Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:14:47 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> >> Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone
> >> A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse..
> >>
> Python>> You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
> Python>> fool of yourself.
> >
> AP> a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, so how do you get a figure with 2
> AP> axes of symmetry from a cone of 1 axis of symmetry
>
> Python>watch it there:
> Python>https://www.youtube.com
>
> AP writes: Does Terence Tao, Jill Pipher & Ken Ribet and Python (possibly Terry Tao in disguise) have Dunning-Kruger effect disability? Wikipedia describes it as "internal illusion in people of low ability". In this case mathematics, that Terry Tao has low ability in math and so misperceives the Cone as 1 axes of symmetry and then deludes himself that a 2 axes of symmetry can be gotten with a slant cut in cone to yield ellipse. Whereas AP was always a straight and narrow on cue scientist, knowing that the cone of 1 axes could never yield a ellipse of 2 axes , no, for AP that slant cut could only yield another figure of 1 axes of symmetry-- the Oval.
>
> The follies and blunders of Dan Christensen, the mighty Canadian oaf of logic and math. Of course his most insane and twisted offering is his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, believing in Boole logic even when Boole screwed up royally in his AND connector truth table of TFFF when in reality it is TTTF, making a mockery of the Either..Or..Or..Both that is a insane self contradiction, yet all logicians of today and past still preach this error ridden nonsense of logic. But Dan is caught often with his mindless pronouncements in sci.math, such as these two incidents.
>
> 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.
> 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
>
>
>
> It has been known by AP that another clear case example of Dunning Kruger disease and mental disorder is the stalker Kibo Parry M. where he posts every day of the year almost for 28 years to sci.math when that insane koot cannot even do a percentage with his 938 is 12% short of 945.
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
> And his continued stalk spam of a another posters mindless talk of some notes he took, a garbled nonsense mess--
> kibo>Here is a plane and cone
> x + 1 = z
> and
> 2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = z^2
> >
> kibo>Square the first equation giving us
> x^2 + 2*x + 1 = z^2
> >
> kibo>In the second equation replace z^2 with x^2 + 2*x + 1 giving us
> 2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = x^2 + 2*x + 1
> >
> kibo>Subtract x^2 + 2*x - 1 from both sides giving us
> x^2 - 2*x + 1 + 2*y^2 = 2
> >
> kibo>Replace x^2 - 2*x + 1 with (x-1)^2 giving us
> (x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2
> >
> kibo>That is EXACTLY the equation of an ellipse
> And there are two planes of symmetry.
> >
> kibo>No matter how you tilt or rotate an ellipse it
> REMAINS an ellipse and has TWO PLANES of symmetry,
> just like the intersection of a plane and cylinder
> remains an ellipse no matter what the slope of the
> plane is.
> >
>
> AP writes: 7 years of stalker shithead Dan Christensen and 28 years of a shithead Kibo Parry M, unloading a wade of crap in every AP thread that AP was doing solid math and physics, such as the above, and no-one kicks the insane stalker Kibo Parry M out of sci.math and sci.physics.
>
> AP writes: well in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry M has more to worry about than Dunning Kruger disease of his mental health, because in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry is a insane person, all stalkers are insane people and as a stalker, not even a human being, no longer a human being but melting away in insanity. For 28 years now, the insane arsewipe Kibo Parry M.. has made no contribution to sci.math but to hate spew everyone he stalks. Get the straightjacket in emergency ambulance for Kibo Parry M size XXSmall.
>
> So, well is the world being Dumbnificated by the fossil fuel burning discharging tonnes and tonnes of toxic chemicals into the air every minute of the day, and that CO2 itself comes in several isomers where the Fire-CO2, not the Animal-CO2 isomer (see my chemistry books) is especially harmful to Humans thinking abilities especially logical thinking. So that John Baez, Terence Tao and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet could no longer reason, reason that if a cone has 1 axis of symmetry, no way in hell is a slant cut into a 1 axis symmetry cone going to yield a 2 axes symmetry ellipse. No way in hell, but the cut will release a 1 axis symmetry Oval.


Everybody in the world believes what those famous mathematicians say.
Nobody in the world has ever believed a single thing that Archie has ever said.

In a lifetime Archie has not been able to convince a single person in the world, well except for convincing one mentally ill crank and he doesn't count for anything.

Imagine Maxwell spent his entire life screaming things everyone knew were false and he was never able to convince anyone of anything he said, so he spent his life screaming insults at them.
Imagine Feynman spent his entire life screaming things everyone knew were false and he was never able to convince anyone of anything he said, so he spent his life screaming insults at them.

Pick any one of your astonishing claims Archie.
What would it take to convince the world that you are right?
Screaming insults at them? Nope.
Telling them to fondle your jar lid and newspaper? Nope.
Come on Archie. What would you have to flop up on the table to convince anyone, who isn't a mentally ill crank, that you are right?
Or what would it take to actually convince you that one of your astonishing claims was actually completely false?

bwr near Harvard, MIT recommends AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbook series that takes the student from age 5 through to age 26 for all their math needs. And it is in my textbooks that BWR finally learned a geometry proof of calculus fundamental theorem, that the oval was the slant cut in cone, not the ellipse and where BWR finally learned some logic that he threw out his error filled Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 4:01:49 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> Everybody in the world believes what those famous

Kibo Parry M near Harvard recommends AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS explaining how calculus can easily be taught in Junior year High School, and why it is inexcusable that Wiles, Hales, Tao, Stillwell still teach ellipse a conic when that is the oval, and never a geometry proof of Calculus Fundamental Theorem

134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN : B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date : September 24, 2020
• Language : English
• File size : 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 23 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,307,085 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #1,241 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #1,345 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #10,634 in Calculus (Books)
•

#4-2, 45th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in General Geometry

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

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.

Length: 375 pages

Product details
File Size: 2013 KB
Print Length: 375 pages
Publication Date: May 2, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07RG7BVZW
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #274,398 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#27 in General Geometry
#336 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

#4-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Length: 236 pages

Product details
File Size: 1390 KB
Print Length: 236 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 16, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WN9RVXD
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,212,707 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2719 in Calculus (Books)
#417 in Calculus (Kindle Store)


#4-4, 56th published book

COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:47:33 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> Think very very VERY hard. Convincing you that something is true means nothing. You are the easiest person that you can fool.
> What does mean EVERYTHING and IS important is convincing EVERYONE ELSE that something out of your mind is true.
>
> THINK. Dozens of tens of thousands of your posts over decades.
> Exactly how many of those convinced anyone that you had found an astonishing result?
>
> I believe that is because you never realized or had the skill to convince everyone else that what you said was true.

AP writes: I never thought that Simon and Kevin had a deficit in convincing since they are journalists. But they seem to have a deficit in understanding what is easy and what is con-art fakery like Wiles proof or Tao's Collatz.

I mean, both Simon and Kevin can understand a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is 2+2=2x2=4 as solution basis vector for Pythagorean Theorem but no N+N+N=NxNxN= M exists for exp 3 to have a solution.

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:46:36 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:47:33 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > Think very very VERY hard. Convincing you that something is true means nothing. You are the easiest person that you can fool.
> > What does mean EVERYTHING and IS important is convincing EVERYONE ELSE that something out of your mind is true.
> >
> > THINK. Dozens of tens of thousands of your posts over decades.
> > Exactly how many of those convinced anyone that you had found an astonishing result?
> >
> > I believe that is because you never realized or had the skill to convince everyone else that what you said was true.
>
> AP writes: I never thought that Simon and Kevin had a deficit in convincing since they are journalists. But they seem to have a deficit in understanding what is easy and what is con-art fakery like Wiles proof or Tao's Collatz.
>
> I mean, both Simon and Kevin can understand a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is 2+2=2x2=4 as solution basis vector for Pythagorean Theorem but no N+N+N=NxNxN= M exists for exp 3 to have a solution.

So, just from what you say, it sound like Simon and Kevin just nod their heads when anyone shows them anything in math.
That isn't going to convince anyone else that you are a stupor brain.

If you want to convince the world that Wiles is wrong then all you have to do is show exactly which step in Wiles proof is in error and what that error is.
But you imagining that you get to redefine And and Or and If and what numbers are, that isn't going to get anyone in math to believe anything you say.

Do I recall that the person who said something about basis vectors, which you had no clue what those might be until he named them,
did he say something like "IF you could actually put together a proof using this, and he did not believe you could ever do this, then you would have a proof"?
Wasn't that what he actually said at the time? And did you actually construct what he said he believed that you could never do?
And ALL you did was eliminate all the words he wrote except "basis vector" and "have a proof" and imagined he had believed you had a proof?

Go find the original message and all the words he used and see if you actually did what he said you would have to do before you would have a proof.
And you have to CONVINCE people who are actually good practicing mathematicians, people skilled in finding errors in your nonsense claims.

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 12:09:21 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:

AP writes: question BWR, have you ever brown nosed someone for mathematics.

Apparently Markus and Zelos brown nose every night with their 15 John Gabriel threads regurgitated to the 1st page.

Markus is spamming in place of Zelos, and maybe Zelos is on a tryst to Africa to meet up with his lover John Gabriel, if one can call that love-- rehashing every post of John every day.

> Zelos Malum spam 9-9-2021
>
> This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
> Eram semper recta's profile photo
> Eram semper recta
> , …
> zelos...@gmail.com
> 141
> unread,
> Only a genius could write what is written in my latest article.
> 1:34 AM
> 
> Eram semper recta's profile photo
> Eram semper recta
> , …
> zelos...@gmail.com
> 41
> unread,
> John Gabriel said "Let there be light and there was light!"
> On Thursday, 9 September 2021 at 08:05:03 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote: > onsdag 8 september
> 1:28 AM
> 
> New Age Prophet's profile photo
> New Age Prophet
> , …
> Eram semper recta
> 42
> Cranks Zelos Malum and Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python) can't grasp even the simplest of concepts.
> 1:21 AM
> 
> This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
> Eram semper recta's profile photo
> Eram semper recta
> , …
> zelos...@gmail.com
> 30
> unread,
> Calculus is 100% pure geometry.
> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 21:29:46 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote: > onsdag 8 september
> 12:47 AM
> 
> ross.pro...@gmx.com's profile photo
> ross.pro...@gmx.com
> , …
> Eram semper recta
> 77
> unread,
> I'm calling you out Eram Semper Recta
> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 21:39:24 UTC+3, markus...@gmail.com wrote: > onsdag 8 september
> 12:37 AM
> 
> mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
> mitchr...@gmail.com
> ,
> zelos...@gmail.com
> 2
> unread,
> Zero limit is where subtraction operation stops
> onsdag 8 september 2021 kl. 20:50:26 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com: > by subtracting more you
> 12:11 AM
> 
> markus...@gmail.com's profile photo
> markus...@gmail.com
> , …
> zelos...@gmail.com
> 3
> unread,
> Re: Banning the John Gabriel- Zelos Malum actor-acting con-math show from sci.math.
> 12:09 AM
> 
> WM's profile photo
> WM
> , …
> zelos...@gmail.com
> 93
> unread,
> Cantor's mistake
> onsdag 8 september 2021 kl. 21:35:28 UTC+2 skrev WM: > zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 8.
> 12:06 AM
> 

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 4:01:49 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> Everybody in the world believes what AP famous mathematicians say.
> Nobody in the world has ever believed a single thing that Simon has ever said.
>
> In a lifetime Kevin has not been able to convince a single person in the world, well except for convincing one mentally ill crank and Andrew Wiles doesn't count for anything.
>
> Imagine Maxwell spent his entire life screaming things everyone knew were false and Terence Tao was never able to convince anyone of anything Thomas Hales said, so Peter Higgs spent his life screaming insults at them.
> Imagine John Baez spent his entire life screaming things everyone knew were false and Lisa Randall was never able to convince anyone of anything he said, so Arthur B. McDonald spent his life screaming insults at them.
>
> Pick any one of Roger Penrose astonishing claims AP.

AP writes: I was not aware he had any.

> What would it take to convince the world that Ohio State are right?
> Screaming insults at them? Nope.
> Telling them to fondle your jar lid and newspaper? Nope.

AP writes: oh dear me, BWR antidepressant is beginning to fade out before he reaches the end of the post. There now, BWR got a shot in the arm booster of antidepressants.

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:48:07 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> So are Andrew Wiles so pissed off at after a lifetime of rejection that Andrew and Ken Ribet are never going to actually do any real experiment?

AP writes: you mean the simple AP experiment of dropping a Mason lid inside a paper cone to prove the slant cut is a Oval, never the ellipse.

> Or is it that John Stillwell know that if John did an actual real test of any of cone conjectures this will show that every college are wrong?
>
> Which is it Archie?

AP writes: of course the King of Science AP wins, like I said so many times before-- no-one studies Logic, and thinking logically in science anymore, except AP

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 4:01:49 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> Everybody in the world believes what AP famous mathematicians say.
> Nobody in the world has ever believed a single thing that Simon has ever said.
>
> In a lifetime Kevin has not been able to convince a single person in the world, well except for convincing one mentally ill crank and Andrew Wiles doesn't count for anything.
>
> Imagine Maxwell spent his entire life screaming things everyone knew were false and Terence Tao was never able to convince anyone of anything Thomas Hales said, so Peter Higgs spent his life screaming insults at them.
> Imagine John Baez spent his entire life screaming things everyone knew were false and Lisa Randall was never able to convince anyone of anything he said, so Arthur B. McDonald spent his life screaming insults at them.
>
> Pick any one of Roger Penrose astonishing claims AP.

AP writes: I was not aware he had any.

> What would it take to convince the world that Ohio State are right?
> Screaming insults at them? Nope.
> Telling them to fondle your jar lid and newspaper? Nope.

AP writes: oh dear me, BWR antidepressant is beginning to fade out before he reaches the end of the post. There now, BWR got a shot in the arm booster of antidepressants.

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:48:07 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> So are Andrew Wiles so pissed off at after a lifetime of rejection that Andrew and Ken Ribet are never going to actually do any real experiment?

AP writes: you mean the simple AP experiment of dropping a Mason lid inside a paper cone to prove the slant cut is a Oval, never the ellipse.

> Or is it that John Stillwell know that if John did an actual real test of any of cone conjectures this will show that every college are wrong?
>
> Which is it Archie?

AP writes: of course the King of Science AP wins, like I said so many times before-- no-one studies Logic, and thinking logically in science anymore, except AP

P.S. AP no longer tolerates stalkers and their attack posts, so AP shreds them then spits them back out. For the lesson of any stalker is never the science content but the criminal social act of stalking.