Kibo Parry M asking Dr. Philip J. Hanlon the fastest way of conversion 1.00005^140,000,000 into scientific notation, but does it involve 2.71.., but see how AP converts it the fastest way possible.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

AP's fastest method involves GROUPING the base number, 1.00005, so would 2.71... make it any faster?

For example, if we had the base be 3.16.. (square root of 10 to make it easier to understand) and if we were faced with conversion to scientific notation of 3.16..^6 we proceed thusly.
3.16..^2 = 10
We now group by dividing 2 into 6 for 3 and hence have 1*10^3

In the same manner for 1.00005^140,000,000 We group once we find what 10 as base equals or as 100 as base equals. Using a hand calculator and reiterating 1.00005 for 100 iterations of multiplication I find 100 = 1.005, then 10^4 = 1.01, 10^8=1.02, 10^16 = 1.04, 10^32= 1.08, 10^64= 1.168, 10^128= 1.365, 10^256= 1.863, 10^512= 3.470, 10^1024 = 12 APPROXIMATION 10^1000 = 10. Now dividing 1000 into 140,000,000 I end up with the close approximation that 1.00005^140,000,000 is close to being 10^140,000, vastly much larger than 945,000,000.

So, can the involvement of 2.71... make for a faster calculation? Is the Dartmouth president formerly a mathematician able to answer that question or is he like kibo Parry M, just ad hominem day and night for 28 years nonstop..

AP writes: AP no longer tolerates any Criminal Stalker and thus shreds his attack and spits the byproduct back into the lap of the stalker.

Re: Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon "can't do percentages" NSF Dr.Panchanathan flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 9:46:08 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🦇 of Math and 🦨 of Physics Sheldon Glashow "Drag Queen of Science"
> Lisa Randall> blathered:
> Meaning the calculations you made were wildly different from what you
> wanted the outcome to be, so that even someone as dumb and stoopid as
> yourself realized it wasn't going to work? And not even your fudge
> factors ("sigma error") could 'fix' it?
>
> I did notice you fixed your percentage error after I pointed out your
> mistake. But I'm sure that shortly you'll lie again and say I can't do
> percentages.
> If they were old back then, probably made with radium. Tritium dials
> would have faded significantly in 50 years.
> Umm, no, radium-226 has a half life of 1600 years. You won't notice any
> change in 50 years. Also radium emits alpha particles (energetic helium
> nuclei), not beta particles (electrons).
> Good for your Phake Physics, since it's alpha particles, not
> beta/electrons (correct name for 0.5 Mev particles).
> Radioactivity has been understood for some 100 years. Why do you make
> up garbage and pretend that it's true?
> Look up radium-226 instead, you'll have better luck than making up
> garbage and pretending that it's true.
> >
> > Harvard, NSF Dr.Panchanathan
> > Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics
> >
On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 10:24:48 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Autistic Harvard & NSF Dr.Panchanathan writes:
>

SCI.MATH FAQ, 19Sep2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running well-- today's topics-- take a look at the only pure science newsgroup, free of spammers and police drag net spam, free of stalkers.

The only thing worth discussing in sci.math and to shift the momentum of the entire Math Community to the TRUTH OF MATHEMATICS is the painful having to throw out cranks of mathematics-- Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, and many others who refuse to recognize the single most important math of our times is a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in doing such, it cleans out mathematics just like scrubbing and vacuuming to clean out our houses is a necessary function in going forward. And the above listed math fools are trying everything in their power to keep math entrenched in their stupidity.

Another item of huge concern is the correction of the Oval as the slant cut in Conic Sections, not the ellipse, and we can see how mindless and idiotic is the ship of state of mathematics, when the above list of failed mathematicians even refuses to correct such a simple error.

Also, a third item which reveals that most math professors are good at calculations but mostly mindless fools of logic or just making a proof of mathematics, for all of the above listed fools of math still preach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. All because their tiny pea brained minds of logic can never understand how Boole screwed up on truth tables and that AND is never TFFF but always TTTF. Yet the above math fools use 2 OR 1= 3 every day in all their proofs of mathematics.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

XXXXXXXXXXX

Principles of sci.math

1) Above all, do math in sci.math, for at the end of the day, end of the year, end of a life, it is the math that you do in sci.math that only counts.

2) When doing math in sci.math and talking to someone else that is seriously doing math with you-- be polite.

3) Most posters degenerate into ad hominem attackers. Reread (1).

4) Sci.math is open to all, sadly, to even those who never do math in sci.math, but the openness is a blessing in disguise, because the openness more often than not, gets at the truth of science that has been corrupted by other scientists. And sci.math is self-policing, meaning that if you continue to piss and poop, (like Jeff Relf offtopic in sci.physics) if you continue to piss and poop in sci.math, the others who seriously do math in sci.math will self police the miscreant out. For offtopic spammers like Relf is no better than a person invited to dinner and instead of using the bathroom, shits in the middle of the dining room floor.

5) Prime Minister Boris Johnson & President Joe Biden, please call off your police agencies and FBI, CIA, Mi5, Mi6 of their daily "police drag net spam" in sci.physics and sci.math, and leave those two newsgroups completely alone to do just physics and math. Totally inappropriate of govt agencies to ruin sci.math and sci.physics, you may as well have your agents in all church ceremonies applying drag net spam. The spammer "__" is never appropriate in sci.math or sci.physics, nor is the Stonehenge freak, or any of the other drag net spammers. We all thank the USA and British and other governments and agencies like CERN for inventing Usenet, but please, do not destroy what you built, with police drag net spam. Adhere to the tenet, that a forum sci.physics and sci.math are specifically devoted to physics and math, not to a govt bureaucracy chasing after criminals and terrorists with their highly flamed rhetoric and loud noises in sci.math, sci.physics.

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

AP writes: AP no longer tolerates any Criminal Stalker and thus shreds his attack and spits the byproduct back into the lap of the stalker.

XXXXXXXXX
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


5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.