On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:00:26 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:

> And "proving" any one of Andrew Wiles mentally ill crank-a-doodle delusions to Thomas Hales
> is INFINITELY easier than actually proving/convincing anyone else in the world
> that Terence Tao delusion is really actually true.
>
> Come on John Stillwell. Pick the easiest claim of yours, the one that depends least
> on archimedian numerology, the one that the opposite hasn't been proven by
> tens of thousands of people for hundreds or even thousands of years, the one
> that doesn't depend on John Stillwell imagining that Simon Singh get to redefine all the words to
> mean whatever Kevin Hartnett want them to mean.
> Make the most conventional precise detailed correct proof of Terence Tao claim that you can.
> Take that proof to places that don't have decades of exposure to the mentally ill crank Andrew Wiles.
> DO NOT give them any hint of who John Baez, Chandler Davis really are, that will instantly get Jill Pipher rejected.
> Politely present Ken Ribet claimed "proof" and ask them if it is correct or not.
> Tell them that if it isn't correct that Jill Pipher would like them to explain the errors to you.
> Carefully record their response.
> Bring that back here, no matter what it is, and show Gilbert Strang and Cynthia Barnhart here the response
> to the best chance Sheldon Glashow and Lisa Randall will ever have of convincing anyone.
>
> Anyone but Peter Higgs in the world who thinks they have proven something and people
> tell them that they are wrong, they go back and fix the errors and make stronger
> claim or find another different way of proving it, something far more likely to
> be accepted.
>
> That is EXACTLY the opposite of the mentally ill crank Sheldon Glashow way, where Andrew Wiles just
> keep repeating "FONDLE MY JAR LID, FONDLE MY JAR LID" for decades, and
> imagine that if Terence Tao and Brian Greene just spam post that another thousand times that the result
> will somehow be different than the last thousand times Peter Higgs have spam posted it.

AP writes: from sci.math FAQ-- 6) Criminal-Stalking is defined as constant attacking of another person's character exclusive of science content in his/her threads for more than 1 year. In the case of criminal stalking the attackee, can just __shred the attackers post_ and repost. For stalking is not science, nor academics nor debate nor discussion. Stalking is insanity and criminal behavior.

💀 of Math and ☠️ of Physics Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> blithered:

> AP writes: from sci.math FAQ-- 6) Criminal-Stalking is defined as constant attacking of another person's character exclusive of science content in his/her threads for more than 1 year.

Which is exactly what Archimedes Plutonium does daily. You accuse many,
many posters, myself included, trying to attack their character, usually
by accusing them of being gay or describing gay sexual acts involving
them. So now you admit to being a stalker by your own definition!

> For stalking is not science, nor academics nor debate nor discussion. Stalking is insanity and criminal behavior.

So quit stalking us! Either that or turn yourself in at the nearest
insane asylum.

Kibo>💩 for 🧠 MIT of Math and Princeton Univ Physics "Putin's Stooge" Jill Pipher AMS
>NSF Dr. Panchanathan> tarded:
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 12:00:38 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>💩 for 🧠 MIT of Math and Princeton Univ Physics "Putin's Stooge" Jill Pipher AMS
> Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet> tarded:

AP writes: Kibo did you deliver AP's proof of Oval is slant cut of cone, not ellipse proof to Dr. Panchanathan's desk. It is a shame that the director of NSF still brainwashes school students that the ellipse is a conic when it never was.

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

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:00:26 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> And "proving" any one of Andrea mentally ill crank-a-doodle delusions to Thomas Hales
> is INFINITELY easier than actually proving/convincing anyone else in the world
> that Terence Tao delusion is really actually true.
>
> Come on John Stillwell. Pick the easiest claim of yours, the one that depends least
> on archimedian numerology, the one that the opposite hasn't been proven by
> tens of thousands of people for hundreds or even thousands of years, the one
> that doesn't depend on John Stillwell imagining that Simon Singh get to redefine all the words to
> mean whatever Kevin Hartnett want them to mean.
> Make the most conventional precise detailed correct proof of Terence Tao claim that you can.
> Take that proof to places that don't have decades of exposure to the mentally ill crank Andrew Wiles.
> DO NOT give them any hint of who John Baez, Chandler Davis really are, that will instantly get Jill Pipher rejected.
> Politely present Ken Ribet claimed "proof" and ask them if it is correct or not.
> Tell them that if it isn't correct that Jill Pipher would like them to explain the errors to you.
> Carefully record their response.
> Bring that back here, no matter what it is, and show Gilbert Strang and Cynthia Barnhart here the response
> to the best chance Sheldon Glashow and Lisa Randall will ever have of convincing anyone.
>
> Anyone but Peter Higgs in the world who thinks they have proven something and people
> tell them that they are wrong, they go back and fix the errors and make stronger
> claim or find another different way of proving it, something far more likely to
> be accepted.
>
> That is EXACTLY the opposite of the mentally ill crank Sheldon Glashow way, where Andrew Wiles just
> keep repeating "FONDLE MY JAR LID, FONDLE MY JAR LID" for decades, and
> imagine that if Terence Tao and Brian Greene just spam post that another thousand times that the result
> will somehow be different than the last thousand times Peter Higgs have spam posted it.

AP writes: from sci.math FAQ-- 6) Criminal-Stalking is defined as constant attacking of another person's character exclusive of science content in his/her threads for more than 1 year. In the case of criminal stalking the attackee, can just __shred the attackers post_ and repost. For stalking is not science, nor academics nor debate nor discussion. Stalking is insanity and criminal behavior.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 8:49:00 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> AP writes: Kibo did you deliver AP's proof of Oval is slant cut of cone, not ellipse proof to Dr. Panchanathan's desk. It is a shame that the director of NSF still brainwashes school students that the ellipse is a conic when it never was.

As you have been told many many times, nobody is going to do your work for you.
You are the one who is supposed to do the work to convince the world of your claim.

> 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

I really did try to be nice to you when I suggested that you not pick a claim
that has had proofs of exactly the opposite for a thousand years.
By picking your "oval" you have almost certainly guaranteed your failure.
But failure is what you have been doing for the last thirty years.
So your choice.

> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:00:26 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > And "proving" any one of your mentally ill crank-a-doodle delusions to yourself
> > is INFINITELY easier than actually proving/convincing anyone else in the world
> > that that your delusion is really actually true.
> >
> > Come on Archie. Pick the easiest claim of yours, the one that depends least
> > on archimedian numerology, the one that the opposite hasn't been proven by
> > tens of thousands of people for hundreds or even thousands of years, the one
> > that doesn't depend on you imagining that you get to redefine all the words to
> > mean whatever you want them to mean.
> > Make the most conventional precise detailed correct proof of your claim that you can.
> > Take that proof to places that don't have decades of exposure to your mental illness.
> > DO NOT give them any hint of who you really are, that will instantly get you rejected.
> > Politely present your claimed "proof" and ask them if it is correct or not.
> > Tell them that if it isn't correct that you would like them to explain the errors to you.
> > Carefully record their response.
> > Bring that back here, no matter what it is, and show us the response
> > That is the best chance you will ever have of convincing anyone.
> >
> > Anyone but you who thinks they have proven something and people
> > tell them that they are wrong, they go back and fix the errors and make stronger
> > claim or find another different way of proving it, something far more likely to
> > be accepted.
> >
> > That is EXACTLY the opposite of the mentally ill crank Archie does by
> > keep repeating "FONDLE MY JAR LID, FONDLE MY JAR LID" for decades, and
> > imagine that if you just spam post that another thousand times that the result
> > will somehow be different than the last thousand times you have spam posted it.
>
> AP writes: from sci.math FAQ-- 6) Criminal-Stalking is defined as constant attacking of another person's character exclusive of science content in his/her threads for more than 1 year. In the case of criminal stalking the attackee, can just __shred the attackers post_ and repost. For stalking is not science, nor academics nor debate nor discussion. Stalking is insanity and criminal behavior.

Slight change of subject. Who elected you judge who gets to decide what the definition
of crimes are? But you think you get to decide definitions of everything else that you choose,
so I suppose that is not too big a leap in your mind.

You have demonstrated every day for the last thirty years and more that you are simply mentally ill.
I urged you to pick the easiest possible problem and the easiest possible way for you to try to
prove to the world that you are not mentally ill. Just take your claimed proof to any highly skilled
person in that are of mathematics and ask them to check the correctness, without them knowing
anything about your decades of descent into mental illness. It is your big chance. DO IT!
Get anyone highly skilled to look at your claimed proof and announce that it is in fact correct.
The entire world of mathematics will flip upside down IF you can accomplish that.
But you and I and everyone else in the world knows that you will never do that.
I suspect that even you in your current state still understand enough to realize
that if you present any of your claimed proofs to anyone that they will tell you that
you are simply wrong.

Go on Archie. Try to avoid your reputation. Try to get a skilled individual to look at a
carefully constructed detailed logical proof of your "oval" claim.
And then ask them to broadcast their evaluation to the world, because I don't think
we can imagine your telling us what the result was can be trusted.

Why bwr fml is so hard on scientists? Does depression make people hard on the opposite sex?? No that is not a AP book of the future. BWR, you need to up your antidepressant dosage to a kilogram a day.

AP's shredder of stalker hate is well oiled by now-- see what is spit out--
On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 12:42:54 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
Kibo did you deliver AP's proof of Oval is slant cut of cone, not ellipse proof to Dr. Panchanathan's desk. It is a shame that the director of NSF still brainwashes school students that the ellipse is a conic when it never was.
> As Dr.Panchanathan have been told many many times, nobody is going to do Rita R. Colwell work for France Anne Cordova.
> Lisa Randall are the one who is supposed to do the work to convince the world of Jill Pipher claim.
> > 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
> I really did try to be nice to Andrea Ghez when I suggested that Andrea Ghez not pick a claim
> that has had proofs of exactly the opposite for a thousand years.

AP writes: would a truncated Duodecahedron have been better, BWR?

> By picking your "oval" you have almost certainly guaranteed Lisa Randall failure.
> But failure is what Lisa Randall have been doing for the last thirty years.
> So your choice.
> > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:00:26 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > > And "proving" any one of Jill Pipher mentally ill crank-a-doodle delusions to yourself
> > > is INFINITELY easier than actually proving/convincing anyone else in the world
> > > that that Andrea Ghez delusion is really actually true.
> > >

AP writes: BWR, is she delusional because she cannot ask the simple question of which is the atom's true real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is Dirac's magnetic monopole? Is that why she is delusional, or is that why Lisa Randall is delusional?

> > > Come on Dr. Panchanathan. Pick the easiest claim of yours, the one that depends least
> > > on Dan Christensen's mindless voodoo of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, the one that the opposite hasn't been proven by
> > > tens of thousands of people for hundreds or even thousands of years, the one
> > > that doesn't depend on you imagining that you get to redefine all the words to
> > > mean whatever you want them to mean.
> > > Make the most conventional precise detailed correct proof of Sheldon Glashow claim that you can.
> > > Take that proof to places that don't have decades of exposure to MIT mental illness.
> > > DO NOT give them any hint of who Stanford Univ really are, that will instantly get you rejected.
> > > Politely present CalTech claimed "proof" and ask them if it is correct or not.
> > > Tell them that if it isn't correct that AMS Jill Pipher would like them to explain the errors to Andrew Wiles.
> > > Carefully record their response.
> > > Bring that back here, no matter what it is, and show Simon Singh the response
> > > That is the best chance Kevin Hartnett will ever have of convincing anyone.
> > >
> > > Anyone but Andrew Wiles who thinks they have proven something and people
> > > tell them that they are wrong, they go back and fix the errors and make stronger
> > > claim or find another different way of proving it, something far more likely to
> > > be accepted.
> > >
> > > That is EXACTLY the opposite of the mentally ill crank Terence Tao does by
> > > keep repeating "FONDLE MY JAR LID, FONDLE MY JAR LID" for decades, and
> > > imagine that if Thomas Hales just spam post that another thousand times that the result
> > > will somehow be different than the last thousand times John Stillwell have spam posted it.
> >

AP writes: never a geometry proof of Calculus Fundamental Theorem out of any of the above mentioned persons, so why are they even "in education". Other than suppress and keep on keeping on with error filled math.

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)

1-AP writes: from sci.math FAQ-- 6) Criminal-Stalking is defined as constant attacking of another person's character exclusive of science content in his/her threads for more than 1 year. In the case of criminal stalking the attackee, can just __shred the attackers post_ and repost. For stalking is not science, nor academics nor debate nor discussion. Stalking is insanity and criminal behavior.