bwr fml on Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales and others with their mistaken Natural Logarithm

On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:44:40 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
BWR the criminal stalker (see AP definition) with his attack scree dropped into a AP thread instead of his bathroom --
> Andrew Wiles ALWAYS imagine that you get to define everything Terence Tao way and that everyone else in the world is wrong
> And Thomas Hales can see how that has made everyone in the world tell John Stillwell are wrong and refuse to accept anything that you claim.
>0.0000499987500416651042291640626116022602616469808506177330
> ln(1.00006) = 0.00005999820007199676015551222439988757734825496569340223749...
> ln(1.000000007) = 0.0000000069999999755000001143333327330833366947333137251...
>
> Lets try
> ln(1.09999) = 0.09530927071300254574392690870058034733553876968841632708159...
> and even
> ln(1.99999) = 0.69314218054744526775040920416650729723100603791286562020760...
> And I won't even get started on what the value of ln(1+1000) is
>
> Hummm... So I guess in your world .693... in now equal to .99999.
> Actually I've wondered why Andrew Wiles haven't redefined the values of all the numbers, it would make some of your claims even easier.
>
> Terence Tao might even imagine that Andrew Wiles have tripped over what has been known for hundreds of years that the limit(ln(1+x)==x as x goes to zero)
>
> BUT Andrew Wiles would say that is stupid and wrong because Terence Tao can't claim that everyone else is wrong and you are right
> You have claimed for decades that EVERYTHING you didn't make up is stupid and wrong.
> Tell us how many of those claims have been accepted as correct and right by anyone else.
> Hint: That number begins with zero and is only one digit.
> But PLEASE correct me if I've missed any single astonishing claim that has ever been accepted as correct by everyone else.

SCI.MATH FAQ, 20Sep2021// 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

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)

5th published book

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 2:02:32 AM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:51:29 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 15 thread spam by Zelos Malum, every night in favor of his lover John Gabriel
>
> And where is Andrew Wiles "do the math" that Terence Tao say everyone is supposed to be doing
> while Jill Pipher are calling everyone gay with spewing tens of thousands of lines of spam.
>

AP writes: I would hardly say they are gay and happy, maybe after a few cool beers.

> DO the math Andrew.
> John Stillwell use log.
> Terence Tao claim everything is a polymath
> Ken Ribet have shown nothing to demonstrate that the log is polynomial.
>

AP writes: you mean the Ribet theorem is down the drain too.

> Hint, the log is always increasing and always doing that more slowly as x increases.
> Can Gilbert Strang construct a logical argument that says that NO polynomial can behave that way?
> That should not be difficult, even for Simon Singh or Kevin Hartnett.
> DO the math Andrew.

AP writes: BWR, I think your prodding is falling on deaf ears, for Andrew cannot even admit the oval is the slant cut in cone, not the ellipse. Something that even Simon and Kevin can probably work out and get a cover picture in Nick Thompson's Wired magazine. BWR, you don't think that "wired" means "stoned", do you, at least I haven't heard that in hippie language lately.

SCI.MATH FAQ, 20Sep2021// 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 openess 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.

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

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 12:33:00 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> bwr fml on Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales and others with their mistaken Natural Logarithm
>

AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives.

In AP's OWN WORDS here:

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.”
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Dan

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

Dan Christensen wrote:

> AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse
> you. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be
> meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives.
> In AP's OWN WORDS here:
> “Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no
> division.” --June 29, 2020

Rᵤᵥ - 1/2 R gᵤᵥ = 8πG/c⁴ Tᵤᵥ

Did Andrew Wiles win his Abel for never able to do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Perhaps Andrew failed Calculus so much he never knew that Calculus was geometry. And how he peddles a limit analysis for FTC. I guess Andrew is so failed in math he never can understand that when you analyze something, does not mean you proved that something, you just analyzed it, much like pondering and scratching your head, but it does not mean you proved it.

Which could explain why Andrew Wiles still denies the Oval is the slant cut in a cone and not the ellipse. Is that why Andrew Wiles was knighted in England-- because he cannot tell the difference between a ellipse and a oval? Or was he knighted and now at Oxford University because Andrew still believes Boole was correct when he said the truth table of AND is TFFF when in truth, the real AND truth table is TTTF, so that we do not get into the awful logic of 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction which Andrew Wiles used in all his math proof attempts, even his con-art of Fermat's Last Theorem. Why Andrew was so dumb in mathematics with FLT, that Andrew never even spotted the fake proof of Euler in exponent 3 for Euler forgot he had to prove no three Evens of A,B,C to make a full proof.

So, why is the world congratulating and awarding a con-artist of mathematics who cannot even acknowledge the oval is the slant cut in a cone? Why? Is it because math education has become dumbnified by the polluted fossil fuel air we breathe, especially in Princeton Univ and Oxford Univ?
Math education so dumbnified that we are lucky to even get a Pythagorean theorem proof solved in classrooms.