Andrew Wiles, there is a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the most important math work of the past 4 centuries, and you totally missed the boat on it. In fact you probably never even saw it, for probably your dim mind in math never realized that Calculus was geometry and therefore needed and required a geometry proof. A mind can be dimmed when it is in fanatic mode of seeking fame and fortune on Fermat's Last Theorem. But with a dim mind as yours in math, once you heard about a geometry proof of FTC, you chose to run and hide, and run and hide has been your trademark ever since. Andrew, your dim mind in math, thought a "limit analysis hornswaggle" is all that Calculus ever needed. But no, Calculus needed a full precise geometry proof so as to make calculus and all of math easy, simple and easy. Make math a easier science than even is the science of biology or geology or astronomy. The only reason math is so hard and difficult is because of fellows like you Andrew in math who pile on more b.s. con-art fakery unto the dung heap of mathematics. And fellows like you never understand, that your job is not fame and fortune, but to make math easy and easier.

This is why it was important for your generation of mathematicians to do a precise and valid FTC, because it cleans out many of the biggest mistakes of Old Math, gives mathematics a thorough scrub down and washing. Throws out of math the continuum, throws out the functions that are not polynomials, throws out the equations of math that have not a positive decimal grid number always on the rightside of the equation alone at all times. Throws out the Reals, the Irrationals, the Rationals, and leaves the only true numbers of mathematics-- the decimal Grid Numbers. Throws out trigonometry from calculus, unless converted to a polynomial over an interval first.

You see Andrew, making math easy, fun, clear, is foreign to your mentality, a mentality driven only by fame and fortune and not the truth of math or science.

So you see Andrew, you made no worthwhile contribution to math or math history, instead you piled on more b.s. added another fakery piece of math, your Fermat's Last Theorem, which now will take the time of a true mathematician only has to work more, to get your FLT thrown out onto that trash pile of fake math.

A true mathematician does not seek glory, fame and fortune, and that is all you did in math, Andrew, seek fame and fortune for never the truth. You continue to run and hide.

When I asked you why you missed spotting the flaw and error of Euler's exponent 3 alleged proof, that Euler never proved for all three A,B,C evens are not a solution in A^3 + B^3 = C^3, what did you do Andrew? Run and hide.

When I asked you that Algebras of elliptic curves had no connection with being a substitute or replacement of Naturals. And that the entire Ribet Theorem and the Langlands program was con-art fake, because, they never had the axiom of algebra-- a valid equation of math can never have a 0 or negative number all alone on the rightside of the equation. What did you do Andrew-- run and hide.

Your running and hiding is not the sign of a accomplished mathematician or a scientist in fact. Your running and hiding are signs you are a fraud and con-artist Andrew. And SCIENCE magazine recently reported a Dutch study that 8% of scientists commit fraud.

Andrew, your running and hiding rather than engaging in serious questions of shortfalls in your math, imply you committed Fraud, Andrew. It has been almost 30 years now, Andrew, that I posted in sci.math that the true proof of FLT is a simple one paragraph proof, that 2+2=2x2= 2^2 = 4, causes the existence of solutions in exponent 2 but since there is no unit basis vector in exp3 or higher, no N+N+N=NxNxN = M, then there cannot exist a solution in exp3 or higher-respectively. So, Andrew, run, hide, run and hide from all challenges to your con-art math.

Why can you not do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, Andrew, is it way to hard for you? Do you think a "limit analysis hornswaggle" is a geometry proof? You know calculus is geometry, but your failed mind in math cannot summon a geometry proof.

Worse yet, Andrew you still use the discredited Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, because a failure of logic like you, Andrew, cannot see mistakes or errors, that Boole switched the true AND truth table of TTTF with that of TFFF, and covering up in the mindless Either Or Or Both. Why did you not catch the Boole mistake before making your ridiculous FLT alleged proof, your 150 pages of incomprehensible tortured garbage argument, where you were so blind in not even recognizing Euler had no proof of FLT in exponent 3. But there, you go running off thinking you proved all of FLT..

Someone that wants to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, Andrew, is not a mathematician who cannot see the mistakes and errors of the past mathematics, not like you Andrew that missed Euler's mistake, missed the oval of conics, missed a geometry proof of calculus, missed knowing what constitutes a true equation of math, missed the idea that since Quantum Mechanics in Physics had thrown out the continuum and replaced it with discrete quantized quantities, that dumb Andrew Wiles keeps on keeping on with continuum.

Is there anything in math with mistakes that you did not miss, Andrew?

Andrew, someone that proves FLT is someone with a mind that can see past mistakes and errors and fixes them. Not a con-art fraud like you Andrew that runs and hides every time a question is raised over your offerings.

And there is the horrible oversight of your geometry abilities, Andrew, I mean you took elliptic curves to model Counting numbers, but so horrid in geometry are you Andrew, for you missed noticing that the ellipse is never a slant cut in a cone, for that is the oval. The ellipse slant cut comes from the cylinder, yet Andrew, you were way way too daffy in geometry to notice that error. Yet to this day, a High School student can prove the oval comes from the cone with a paper cone and a Kerr or Mason lid stuck inside.

So, Andrew, you are not even a mathematician, but a seeker for fame and fortune and who runs and hides at every serious question of shortcomings of your FLT, put to you. You surround yourself with other con-art fraud such as book writers Simon Singh or John Stillwell brown nosers, who gain to make fortune along with you. But when serious questions of your FLT are put forward, there is Andrew, running and hiding, run Andrew, hide Andrew.

When, Andrew, will you stop running and hiding? Why not acknowledge the truth, that AND truth table is TTTF, something you used in your error filled FLT b.s. Why not acknowledge what a High School student can prove-- the oval is the cone slant cut.

And when in the world are you going to start a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Something you should have started back in 1990s when you posted in sci.math that your FLT was faltering and failed and needed a patch. However, you never really patched it, for your method of proof was doomed to failure. You could not even prove the Generalized FLT with your nonsense offering.

Andrew, you are not a mathematician, but a crank.

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?

Andrew Wiles, the imp of mathematics, with his ellipse a conic is he now peddling? a rectangle is slant cut in Cylinder, along with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 1:00:43 PM UTC-5, Forest Beech wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote: (snipped to save space)
> > 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.
> this bureaucrat mass murder mazafaka, fraudci, not an italian, is crazy
> like shit. You have to "comply" with what he wants, *death_jabs* hence
> genocide.
>
> Wake up! https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=1NU2WS1URHHO

SCI.MATH FAQ, 18Sep2021// 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.

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

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.

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.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 9:28:15 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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.
> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics

You complain about people insulting you and not doing the math.
And you insult other people and not do the math.
All you have to do, all you have ever had to do is
create a proof that actually convinces everyone else that the slant cut of the cone is not an ellipse.

Your redefining AND and OR is never going to convince anyone of anything but that you are mentally ill.
Your Euler exponent 3 claim is nothing more than a trivial case the reader does for themselves.

What really matters, and what you have never been able to do
is to write a detailed precise correct proof that the slant cut is not an ellipse.
"Fondle my jar lid" is never going to convince anyone.
But I suggest that after a decade you are unable to ever convince anyone but you.
You made a trivial mistake long ago, you misunderstood where the enter of the intersection was.
And that mistake made you believe the intersection was not an ellipse.
And, after you repeated that to yourself a dozen times, you are unable to see or admit your mistake.
And you are unable to create a dozen different proofs that it is not an ellipse, every proof better than every other proof.
And this alone is enough to convince everyone that you are wrong and hopelessly mentally ill.

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 75 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. AP's 174th book. Soon to be published as a Kindle book. Details of all of these are found in already published Kindle books, such as the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Last revision was 21Sep2021. I added the correction of the Natural Logarithm Ln(x) to base 2.71... for its definition using Y= 1/x of an integral over an interval from 1 to x in 1/t dt is very much flawed and incorrect. The true definition of Ln(x) has to be from a geometry that allows for the equiangular logarithmic spiral. A Ln(x) based upon 1/x does not give a equiangular log spiral. What does give a equiangular log spiral are the Decimal Grid Number System where you have equal spacing of discrete numbers. So for example in Old Math their Ln(1.02) was 0.0198... while in New Math where we have a corrected and true Ln(x) that Ln(1.02) = 0.02 exactly.

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)

Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds question of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Some of these can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series, but the entries keep changing and added on new, means I need to have a separate book for these fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for ages 18-19 Freshperson College, math textbook series, book 3
Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.

Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak, the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science because it has this "peak of calculus", unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete to its peak of calculus understanding. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes because the peak of math is going nowhere. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require a new math peak/summit to handle the new physics.

Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.

Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.

The listings in Mathopedia of errors, mistakes and fakes is based on the idea that Calculus is the supreme achievement of all of mathematics for it is the essential math of doing Physics electricity and magnetism. And in order to have a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we must clean up and clean out all the mistakes, fakes and errors of Old Math, erst, we have no Calculus. So calculus is the consistency maker for the rest of all of mathematics.

1) Calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a proof that derivative and integral are inverses of one another, just as addition and subtraction are inverses, or, multiplication and division are inverses. The only way to obtain a geometry proof is to clean up and clean out all the fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math, such as their fake numbers-- the Reals. Their fake definition of function allowing anything be a function. Their fakery of a continuum when even physics by 1900 with Planck onwards in Quantum Mechanics proving the Universe is discrete Space not a continuum, yet by 1900 onwards those in mathematics following the idiotic continuum in the Continuum Hypothesis with even more avid interest, when they should have thrown the continuum on a trashpile of shame.

2) The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, because you have to need and apply one mechanism only to obtain the true numbers of mathematics-- Mathematical Induction. In Old Math they had just a tiny few intelligent mathematicians, Kronecker, who emerged from the gaggle crowd of kooks to notice that Naturals all come from one single mechanism-- Mathematical Induction. But Old Math never had a crowd of mathematicians with logical brains to say-- all our numbers need to come from the one mechanism of Mathematical Induction.

3) The true numbers of math have empty space between successor and predecessor numbers. For example the 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . . , 9.8, 9.9, 10..0. Where no numbers exist between .1 and .2, etc. Only discrete numbers allow us to give a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

4) All functions of mathematics must be a polynomial, and if not a polynomial, convert the offering to a polynomial over a specific interval.

Where is that stupid thread in sci.math, poising as a puzzle problem when it had no functions only pretend functions?

A few days back, 11Aug2021 appeared a stupid puzzle problem here in sci.math. Of someone pretending he had 3, 4 even 5 or 6 functions and wanting to prove equality.

Then I stepped into the conversation saying he had no functions at all, until they are converted into polynomials over a specified interval, then you can do calculus on those true real functions.

So, the world wide math community has got to begin to learn, no function is a function, until, and unless they are polynomials. This is an axiom of math and is proven true by the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. You cannot have a FTC, if you have functions that are not polynomials.

So there is a trade off-- does math want calculus or no calculus? If you want calculus, all your functions have to be polynomials. This has to do with the concept of discrete geometry, not a continuum, for polynomials are discrete.

5) Space is discrete and all lines in space are strings of attached straight lines.

6) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
We can still keep the name "curve" as long as we know it is a string of fine tiny straightline segments strung together in what looks like a smooth curve. If curves exist, then the Calculus in Fundamental Theorem of Calculus cannot be proven and thus Calculus does not exist. We all know that we have to have Calculus, and so we throw out onto the trash pile the curve of Old Math. And this is reasonable because starting in 1900 in physics there arose the Quantum Mechanics of Space being discrete. And a discrete space has no continuum, has no curve of Old Math.

☠️ of Math and 🕱 of Physics Archimedes "antiscience" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> Subject: Re: the run and hide Andrew Wiles, runs and hides from
serious challenges to his alleged proof Re: Fermat status

When and where did Wiles ever run or hide from his proof?
When were there any challenges, much less serious challenges, to his
proof, other than correctable mistakes during the peer review process?

> MATHOPEDIA-- List of 75 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. AP's 174th book. Soon to be published as a Kindle book.>
>
1) Ludwig Poehlmann
2) Ludwig Hansen
3) Ludwig van Ludvig
4) Ludwig Plutonium
5) Archimedes Plutonium
6) Archimedes Plutonium
....
75) Archimedes Plutonium

Is Andrew Wiles no longer able to learn math, just as Baez, Witten, Glashow, Higgs not able to learn the truth behind oval or ellipse, the 2 OR 1= 3, the geometry proof of calculus, or the real electron of the atom? All they all washed up and washed out?
1> 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.

Why is UCR John Baez a failure in math and physics, cannot even take 9 times 105 and see that it is 945? I mean, well, why ever bother with the mindless Weinberg-Glashow-Gell-Mann Standard Model nonsense of physics, as some sort of Algebra, when you cannot do 9x105=945 and interpret it correctly of what you have done in physics.

Physics, left up to Baez and his chums of Weinberg, Glashow, Gell-Mann, Peter Higgs, Ed Witten those chums are comfortable with a electron at 0.5MeV, proton at 938MeV, neutron at 940MeV and all three of them as "do nothing particles" with the amazing audacity of saying the 0.5MeV particle flys around the outside of a 938MeV proton at nearly the speed of light 99.99% speed of light, yet never flys off. For Baez, and his chums never understood Angular Momentum. Never could interpret 9 x 105 = 938 or 940 within Sigma Error.

But then along comes AP, and says-- sigma error is important in physics and use it.

AP says-- you cannot have "do nothing particles in physics".

AP says-- the true electron of atoms is the muon and stuck inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law by producing Dirac magnetic monopoles such as the 0.5MeV dipole as electricity.

Is John Baez or Sheldon Glashow or Peter Higgs or Ed Witten still able to learn in science, are they just complete washed up and washed out. Or are they complete wash out failures of physics? Probably complete failures because they cannot even muster the intelligence of dropping a Kerr or Mason lid inside a folded up paper cone and acknowledge something as simple as what a High School student can prove, that a slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, (see AP books below). Yet that is what the "pack of fools Baez, Glashow, Higgs, Witten" still teach their electron is 0.5MeV, their ellipse is slant cut in cone, but probably worst of all, these bozos still teach the Boole logic of 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction. Imagine that, physics professors who cannot even think logically correct, no wonder they are incapable of 9 x 105.

74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-4, 105th published book

Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.

Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : March 24, 2020
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• ASIN : B086BGSNXN
• Print Length : 39 pages
• File Size : 935 KB
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)



#1-5, 112th published book

New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.

Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book.. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B0875SVDC7
• Publication date : April 15, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 1134 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#1-6, 135th published book

QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.

What I said here to John Baez applies equally well to Andrew Wiles, for they are not mathematicians but con-artists of science as they run, run and hide whenever real questions of their math comes up. Such as Andrew Wiles running and hiding from the fact that the slant cut in cone is a Oval, not his dumb Wiles's ellipse.

John's problem is that he is a calculator brain, not a science theory brain.. John does not have a logical mind to be in physics or math. As a teacher, John can regurgitate what the books say, but as for outside the box, John fails. Why, John fails science and math so badly that when it was shown to him that you simply drop a Kerr or Mason lid inside a rolled up paper cone the slant cut is a Oval in cone, never the ellipse. And what was John's reaction to this advice? Of course, the failure that John is with no logical brains, was to try and attempt to change the definition of ellipse to be that of the oval. Failures and losers of math and physics always want to discredit with ad hominem their opponents rather than accept the truth and reality of physics and math. And this can also be seen by failures wanting to ad hominem and do people talk-- more than roll up their sleeves and do actual physics and math-- witness: John makes a "crackpot measuring index".

John, why not accept the truth that a slant cut in cone is Oval, never a ellipse, or stay the mindless childish fool you are.

On Tuesday, January 4, 1994 at 4:29:34 PM UTC-6, john baez wrote:
> This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 28)
> John Baez
> I think I'll finally break my New Year's resolution to stop making a fool
> of myself on the net, and attempt an explanation of some things I am
> just learning a bit about, namely, Teichmueller space and moduli space.
> These are concepts that string theorists often throw around, and when I first

Yes, more people reading AP because John Baez and his troop of run and hide con artists of math of Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, John Stillwell, Thomas Hales, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet are at the con art fakery of math, not the truth of mathematics with their:

a) refusal to acknowledge calculus is geometry and thus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

b) Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never ellipse

c) Boole got all 4 of his connectors truth table wrong, worst being AND at TFFF when it truly is TTTF so we do not end up with 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction

d) Natural Logarithm with base 2.71... has nothing to do with Y = 1/x for the Ln(1.00005) equals exactly 0.00005. A case of the logic fallacy that 1/x comes close, but you have the wrong function. And this fallacy of "coming close but no relationship" is seen again in the Andrew Wiles and Ken Ribet obnoxious claim that "elliptic curvers relate to counting numbers when they never did so".

So, failures of mathematics, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, Jill Pipher, John Stillwell, Ken Ribet, run , run, and hide for you cannot do proper correct math and only can do run and hide.

1> More people reading AP's newsgroup than sci.math for math science.
2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
>
> SCI.MATH FAQ, 20Sep2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running well--
>
> Today's topic-- how AP is correcting the definition of Natural Logarithm base 2.71... for the Y= 1/x has no relation to the equiangular logarithmic spiral. See AP's 203rd book of science.
>
> Take a look at the only pure science newsgroup, free of spammers, block-spam, 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 and crackpots 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 THE 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

Written in my Sophomore College TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbook is a chapter on Arithmetic-Algebra axioms.

7) Four important Axioms of Arithmetic-Algebra

List of 4 Arithmetic-Algebra Axioms.

The four Arithmetic-Algebra axioms that should be taught early and reviewed and summarized by 1st year college math classes.

This list is in a history of mathematics order, a order in which people first recognized the problem and how they dealt with it, even if they did not formalize the idea as a postulate or axiom of mathematics. And as can be seen in this history, some of these ideas go back to Ancient times such as the Ancient Greeks, that the idea was conceived in Ancient times but was later abandoned and sloppy math came into existence, sloppy and false. So we can perceive that ideas in math or science in general can sometimes be such that we discover the true ideas early, but later abandon them for other ideas that are false, only to have to return to the true ideas.

1) You cannot Remove or Subtract more than what is available. For example we ask someone to subtract 10 from 1. Impossible, because you cannot remove more than what is available to remove and remove is actually a better word to describe the operation of subtract. In Old Math however, they dreamed up a fake concept of negative number and for them 1 - 10 = -9. Those in Old Math saw nothing wrong in a idealism, fake idealism of removing more than what is available. This was known and discovered in Ancient mathematics, especially the Ancient Greeks who well knew that subtraction cannot go beyond what is available. The Ancient Greeks were a fussy bunch for they even denied the existence of irrational numbers as the Pythagoreans even threatened the penalty of death for those with irrational numbers. So of course they would be fussy about something such as negative numbers. But then there came a time in math history of what can be called a game of polynomials of finding the solutions of quadratic equations then higher degree polynomial equations. And this game was played mostly in Italy with that of Tartaglia and Cardan and others playing games of solving polynomial equations. In their play, they had a need for negative numbers and thus opened the flood gates of accepting negative numbers when in actuality, they never existed and cannot exist. Little would these game players of polynomials of algebra ever understand that a Polynomial equation never exists with a 0 or negative number all alone on the rightside of the equation. That the rightside of the equation has to always remain a positive Decimal Grid Number to be a valid polynomial equation, and in that manner, no negative numbers ever exist.

2) You cannot divide by zero. For example, if asked to divide 3 by zero, we have 3/0 and so we have a equation of 3/0 = k, and now multiply both sides by 0 we have 3 = k*0. Now we want to know what k is. But no matter what k is, the product is 0 and not 3. The havoc that this causes if we allow for division by 0, is that every number equals every other number, 1 =2, 2=3, etc. This was probably known also, by the Ancient Greeks but we have no documentation showing they knew this well. But we do have documentation by George Berkeley's 1734 "The Analyst". And it is a wonder, then, that they--the mathematics community, never realized division by 0 needed to be formally known as a axiom or postulate of mathematics. It is sad that in math history, the Ancient Greeks devised the postulate or axiomatic deductive system of mathematics, yet one of the most important of all axioms, you cannot divide by zero is missing in Ancient Greek math.

3) A true valid equation in mathematics must have a positive nonzero Decimal Grid Number, all alone on the rightside of the equation, at all times on the rightside of the equal sign. If Tartaglia and Cardan had known of this axiom or discovered this axiom, then they would not have caused the proliferation of the silly fake negative numbers. Mathematics gets its concept of equality from a balancing beam, much like those seen in some stores where you weigh fruit on one scale and on the other scale you place a known weight.. For Old Math to think you can have 0 all alone on the rightside or have a fake negative number all alone on the rightside, was a grave error of logical reasoning. Just as no fruit-stand salesman has a "no weight on rightside" or has a "imagination of negative something on the rightside". A math equation is a valid equation if and only if a positive nonzero Decimal Grid Number is on the rightside of the equation at all times. Never can an equation of mathematics equal to zero. This was historically discovered by AP in 2015 and noted as a axiom of math algebra. And this axiom applies to all equations and to polynomials especially, for the polynomial equation is a special equation in both math and science, especially physics. Which brings us to the last of these important 4 axioms of mathematics. The axiom that qualifies a function is a function of mathematics.

4) A function of math exists only when it is a polynomial function. If you have a function and cannot convert it into a polynomial over a specific interval, then it is not a function. Trigonometry functions are not functions of mathematics until put into a polynomial form over a interval. Exponential functions are not functions of mathematics unless put into a polynomial form over a interval. Logarithmic functions are not functions of mathematics unless put into a polynomial form over a interval. The only functions in mathematics are polynomial functions over whatever interval is of concern. So in true mathematics, the only functions you will ever see are Polynomials.. At present in math history in 2021, there are thousands and thousands of different so called functions. And is probably one of the greatest reasons that mathematics is a difficult and ugly subject for young people to make a career in. Old Math never had a clean-up department, but rather, had ever more and more ugly fake junk thrown onto the pile that is called mathematics. In the history of mathematics, so many proposed candidate functions failed that test of becoming a polynomial over a interval. AP discovered this axiom in 2016 in order to make all of Calculus simple and easy, but as it became obvious after 2016, that the *polynomial requirement* is essential in order to produce a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. So, what became a tool to make Calculus super easy to make math easy to work in because if all functions were polynomials, thus able to apply the two calculus power rules for derivative and integral. What became a aid in simplicity, and ease of working calculus, turns out that this polynomial function requirement is a necessity of mathematics because we cannot have a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus without this polynomial requirement. For details see AP's book 11th published book:

Old Math only got one of the 4 above listed critical axioms of Algebra correct, the one that you cannot divide by 0 axiom. But the other 3 were missed by Old Math, and shows how much the math community carries on without someone with a logical brain to think clear. As if mathematics was carried on by blind people.

Now Euclid in Ancient Greek times needed only 5 axioms with the parallel postulate being the 5th. So obviously with AP's conjectures that 6 is the magic number for all encompassing, due to 6 is all the number of EM laws needed to do all of physics, that we start this round of conjecturing on geometry and on arithmetic-algebra.

Conjecture 24.1
Statement: AP conjectures that Geometry needs only 6 axioms to do all of mathematics geometry and this seems reasonable in that Ancient Greeks needed only 5.

Conjecture 24.2
Statement: Mathematics is split into two houses, geometry and algebra-numbers. They are a duality to each other, much like particle to wave duality or electricity to magnetism duality of physics. Since 6 axioms are needed to do all of geometry, then 6 axioms are all that is needed to do all of algebra-numbers. And in the above listed 4 axioms, AP conjectures that all four of those are reduced to just the (1) what is a equation and (2) what is a function. The idea of no negatives and division by zero is never allowed comes out as a theorem from "what is a equation of math". So that leaves algebra-numbers with 4 more axioms to have 6 in all.

Conjecture 24.3
Statement: When the final 6 axioms of Geometry and of Algebra are fully realized, I conjecture they mirror image one another. For example the geometry axiom of "all right angles are equal to one another" would be the axiom in algebra that of the Pythagorean theorem A^2 + B^2 = C^2. In Physics EM 6 laws, we have the Faraday law as dual to the Ampere-Maxwell law where magnetism produces electricity in Faraday and where electricity produces magnetism in Ampere-Maxwell.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics