Newest Research into Logic// add to AP's 5th book SUSPEND ALL COLLEGE LOGIC CLASSES, UNTIL THEY FIX THEIR ERRORS...

Oct 3, 2021, 6:04:55 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 3, 2021, 5:59 PM
to sci.math

We know all matter is made up of atoms. We know even gases are made up of atoms. So we have only atoms and the void in existence. The Universe itself is both void and atoms. An entity in science contains some atoms.

If all entities that exist are composed of atoms, then the Universe itself must be an atom.

Analysis: so if that is not true, then we have to go back and also throw out the Atomic theory itself that All matter is made up of atoms, for the Universe itself is part matter. We would have to make an exception to the Atomic theory, and this is never good practice in science, for our laws need to be universal, not riddled by exception.

P.S. save, as I want to see how and if I keep polishing such science ideas. Some ideas in science need a long time to get bright shiny polished.
AP

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>

Oct 4, 2021, 12:43 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe

Now there is a question of the history of Logic, why Boole and Jevons never bothered to check for consistency of their end result conclusion of their connectors, especially the AND, OR, IF-Then.

Now sometimes mathematicians even go and check for consistency in their work, such as if a axiom is derivable by other axioms, or in conflict with other axioms.

So why did Boole and Jevons never bother with consistency? I believe the reason is that they were just poor in skills of logic and really did not have a "logical mind". They were more of what one can say is a editor encyclopedic mind of harvesting things into a pile, but never making sense of the pile.

For there really is a super easy way of checking upon the consistency of logic connectors. One that I mention in my book of Suspend all College Logic until they fix their errors.

And that easy checkup simply involves a Primitive Axiom definition and then a glance at the truth tables of connectors to see if any of them duplicate their assigned numbers of true and false.

So we look at Boole's AND, OR, IF-Then and those were TFFF, TTTF (Boole's Inclusive OR), and TFTT.

And what we see in this set of Boole's truth table is that the first has 1 and 3 of the other, the next has 1 and 3 of the other, and the last has 1 and 3 of the other.

Now we look at AP's 4 connectors of AND, OR, Equal-Not combined, If-Then, and their truth tables in respective order are TTTF, FTTF (AP has exclusive Or), TTTT, TFUU.

Now AP runs through the Consistency test. We have one connector of all 4 one with 0 other. We have one connector of 3 the same with 1 other. We have one connector with 2 the same and 2 the other. And finally we have one connector with a third category of Unknown.

So, Boole and Jevons logic is inconsistent for it lacks a connector of 2 of one and 2 of another (although Boole tried to have exclusive OR), but that attempt already exposes Boole as a illogical thinker to think a connector is ambivalent in being exclusive or inclusive. The debacle that faced Boole with OR only exposes his incompetence in doing logic. But Boole also was a fumbling feeble logician in never seeing that Equal needs to combine with Not to make a 4 table algebra of T and F.

And worst of all of Boole, the idea that his IF-Then comes to be a truth table of TFTT, where a mindless idiotic statement of "If there is a present King of France, then he is bald". Where the IF is false, yet Boole and the logicians after Boole said the entire statement has a true truth value.

What AP is saying is that ever since Boole, there has been zero, zip, nada, no logician existing who had a logical mind to be doing Logic.

I guess I need to save these and include in Suspend book.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Oct 4, 2021, 2:19:52 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
The real big reason I am opening this new research in Logic is that If-Then has two spots of taking care of division by 0 in math with truth table TFUU for Material Conditional.

IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF/THEN
MOVES INTO
T -> T = T
T -> F = F
F -> T = U probability outcome
F -> F = U probability outcome

But to take care of division by 0 needs just one spot.

So here I am going to research that a link between subtraction which is the Exclusive OR is also a link with division by 0. And thus requires two spots in the truth table. Of course the subtraction is linked to division and the axiom of subtraction is that you cannot remove more than what is available, meaning negative numbers are a sham and are nonexistent.

Here is the truth table of OR and it is going to connect with the two spots in If-Then.

New Logic
OR(exclusive)
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

What I am looking for is a direct connection of subtraction to division. And why two spots are required in If-Then for division by 0.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Oct 4, 2021, 4:15:02 PM (23 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
The new research in Logic connectors is the link up of IF-Then with OR. IF-Then is division in Logic and I suspect the reason it has two spots of U in its truth table of TFUU is because OR is subtraction and subtraction is related to division. So OR requires 2 of one and 2 of another in its truth table of FTTF. Because OR is subtraction and requires 2 spots means that IF-Then as division related to subtraction requires 2 spots.

Of course the requirement for IF-Then is so that mathematics can have division by 0 as undefined, or unknown. And this translates into subtraction that you cannot subtract (I like to say remove) more than what is available. In short, negative numbers are nonexistent.

In subtraction we see it as having a choice in logic. Chose between T or F, but if we have T or T we have no choice. If we have F or F, again we have no choice. So we ask the question, is this choice deal the same as subtraction that you cannot remove more than what is available?

Here I am asking if "having a choice" is the same as "you cannot remove more than what is available".

Then, I am going to see if division is just "rapid subtraction". For I do know that multiplication is "rapid addition". And in the truth tables of AND which is addition in math and the truth table of Equal-Not which is multiplication in math that one has TTTF while the other has TTTT. Unlike comparing OR with IF-Then.

So I need to do this research to fill out more of the details of the logic connectors.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
2:38 AM (12 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
It is coming up to 7Nov so an appropriate time to go down this logic trail. And we have to ask the question of all colleges worldwide as to how much logic is taught to their students in hope of having them "think straight and think clear". As was seen by the obscene interloper, of his hamburger is a single atom logic, and who claims to be a engineer from Stanford Univ. that most schools never require their students to take logic. Personally, I myself had two years of formal logic at UC 1968-1972. I took the 2nd year logic of "symbolic logic" and liked it so much that I took 1st year logic the following year to make sure I did not miss anything. But at UC, the math majors and the science majors were not required to take any logic at all. And the 2nd year logic at UC was mostly filled up by lawyers, people wanting to become lawyers.

So, what are the statistics of teaching logic in school? Are they something like that of 1% of all graduates of college have taken a course of logic? And the number of people who took Symbolic Logic in college? Is that number perhaps 0.1%, which is 1 in a thousand college graduates took Symbolic Logic to learn how to think straight think clear.

Now here I am going to apply some Logical Reasoning that I had learned in college from taking 2 years of formal logic.

And I am going to say, who makes up requirements for a College Education? Does every school make up their own requirements?

And is not the purpose of an Education that of producing people who "think straight and think clear".

So we have the situation around the world that we graduate people from college in all manner of fields of study, but only 1 out of a 1000 of those graduated college persons has a chance of thinking straight and thinking clearly of whatever they are focused upon.

So let me go over this logical argument below that I posted earlier this day. And as I say, Nov7 is soon approaching as the most important holiday in the calendar year of the Plutonium Atom Totality Universe.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:13:52 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> LOGIC at play
>
> Atomic Theory is a Universal quantifier of Every thing, every matter is made up of atoms.
>
> The Universe itself is a Universal quantifier.
>
> A hamburger is not a universal.
>
> So what is in play is the Universal Physics law of Atomic Theory.
>
> And the Universe itself for the Universe is a universal.
>
> So if the Atomic theory is True, which Feynman said in his opening pages of Lectures on Physics. As the single most important fact in all of science-- the atomic theory. Then when we add the fact that the Universe has matter. We come to a fork in the road.
>
> Is the Atomic Theory Law of physics Universal or does it have an exception.
>
> For the Universe surely is Universal and the Universe certainly contains matter.
>
> Can only come to two conclusions. The universe is the exception to the law of Atomic Theory. Or, the Atomic Theory has no exceptions and the Universe itself is just one big atom.
>
> Those never trained in formal logic can never understand that when AP places Atomic Theory up against the Universe itself, that such is a special relationship of Logic.
>
> Not a Cretin in Ancient Greek times or a street urchin in Faraday time, nor a college professor who never took formal logic in modern times placing atomic theory up against a hamburger.
> Cretins cannot understand you are placing the Universal law of Physics up against a Universal quantifier-- the Universe itself.

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
2:30 PM (6 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 4:10:45 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The new research in Logic connectors is the link up of IF-Then with OR. IF-Then is division in Logic and I suspect the reason it has two spots of U in its truth table of TFUU is because OR is subtraction and subtraction is related to division. So OR requires 2 of one and 2 of another in its truth table of FTTF. Because OR is subtraction and requires 2 spots means that IF-Then as division related to subtraction requires 2 spots.
>
> Of course the requirement for IF-Then is so that mathematics can have division by 0 as undefined, or unknown. And this translates into subtraction that you cannot subtract (I like to say remove) more than what is available.
>
> In subtraction we see it as having a choice in logic. Chose between T or F, but if we have T or T we have no choice. If we have F or F, again we have no choice. So we ask the question, is this choice deal the same as subtraction that you cannot remove more than what is available?
>
> Here I am asking if "having a choice" is the same as "you cannot remove more than what is available".
>
> Then, I am going to see if division is just "rapid subtraction". For I do know that multiplication is "rapid addition". And in the truth tables of AND which is addition in math and the truth table of Equal-Not which is multiplication in math that one has TTTF while the other has TTTT. Unlike comparing OR with IF-Then.
>
> So I need to do this research to fill out more of the details of the logic connectors.

Yes, the reason I bring this up is because when I wrote that book of Suspend all College Logic classrooms, I had just assumed the last two lines in the truth table of If-Then were U and U, not thinking that one may have a traditional value of either T or F.

New Logic
IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF/THEN
MOVES INTO
T -> T = T
T -> F = F
F -> T = U probability outcome
F -> F = U probability outcome

So I am here again on the question of whether that last line can be a value of T rather than U.

And the reason I am focused my attention on that, is because addition is AND and multiplication is Equal-Not in a 4 array. And Addition is TTTF while multiplication is TTTT. You see, the symmetry of addition and rapid-addition=multiplication is a 1 off symmetry, for 3 trues versus 4 trues.

AP always is attentive to symmetry.

Now we have subtraction as OR with truth table FTTF and division as If-Then with truth table TFUU.

You see the add multiply is off by 1 in symmetry, but the subtract divide is 2 by 2 , with no offset.

This lack of offset has me concerned that perhaps the truth table of If-Then should be TFUT rather than TFUU. By a TFUT truth table I can align add-multiply with subtract-divide with symmetry.

So, let us inspect that case of F->F whether it makes sense to be True rather than Unknown or undefined. Provided we start with a falsehood does it make sense that the result would be false and hence a T value?

All I needed was one U in IF-Then to allow for division by 0 in math to be undefined. And I would achieve that in a table of TFUT.

So this is what is under investigation by me. The accurate truth table of If ->Then. And I am guided from the symmetry of AND coupled to Equal-Not.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
4:02 PM (4 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now I had almost forgotten that Reductio Ad Absurdum needs a U in IF Then connector. But does Reductio Ad Absurdum need two spots of U, as in TFUU or does it need just one spot of U as TFUT.

So here I maybe able to triangulate what the true IF Then connector is all about. Triangulate between Reductio Ad Absurdum and the division need of dividing by 0 is undefined.

Yes, I triangulated the Reductio Ad Absurdum up next to the division by 0 in math, and both require just the TFUT, meaning both RAA and division by zero is handled with If F ->then T becomes Undefined, while we can still keep If F ->then F, becomes T and the real genuine truth table of If then ends up being TFUT.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

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

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 3:57:02 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium (AP) wrote:
> Newest Research into AP's Fake Logic..

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 & Kibo on>Rose M. Patten "AnalButtfuckManure"Arthur B. McDonald, Linda Hasenfratz

AP writes: AP no longer tolerates a criminal stalker of Dan Christensen for 7 years nonstop attacks, and shredds his attacks and spits them back into the face of Dan Christensen

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 8:43:50 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F.. West, Michael B. Walker
by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM 

Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo

Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM 

Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM

Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
May 10, 2021
by Professor Wordsmith

Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
May 10, 2021
by Michael Moroney

Re: Markus Klyver greatest math fool of Sweden-- thinks an ellipse is a conic section
by
Dan Christensen Aug 2, 2017, 11:52:21 PM

On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
>
> Dan

Re: What mindless jerk Pentcho Valev can never grasp is a variable speed of light destroys Electromagnetic equations, you lose electricity and magnetism, but try telling that to mindless nitwits full of hatred and no brains
by Dan Christensen Aug 3, 2021, 9:37 PM

Re: More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics.
by Dan Christensen Jun 28, 2021, 2:33 PM

Re: 2- Dan Christensen on failed math MIT Gilbert Strang, with his scatterbrained Calculus books, no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Gilbert never knew
by Chris M. Thomasson 6:09 PM On 6/25/2021

Re: Dan Christensen says close all math, physics, chemistry dept. in ALL Canadian Colleges with their fake electron (muon is real electron), fake geometry proof of calculus (Old Math sums up 0 width rectangles), fake Lewis 8 Structure (dissociation...
by Giant Radioactive Easter Bunnie Jan 21, 2021, 5:38:37 PM

Re: Stewart failed Calculus also, and his book should be removed
by Dan Christensen
Jun 24, 2018, 10:52:49 PM

Re: Proof of Kepler Packing//Jan Burse-Alzheimer faggot//ETH Zurich, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, looking at it
by Dan Christensen Jul 9, 2017, 11:34:05 PM

Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,

Re: Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
Dan Christensen

Re: 1Canadian Stalker DAN anal buttfuckmanure CHRISTENSEN stalk reports::: 6 year stalker
By Zelos Malum 30 posts 449 views updated 9:01 PM

Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen 50 posts 951 views updated 8:56 PM

Re: UWO,Drs.Hasenfratz, Shepherd, Chakma, Barmby, Basu, Brown, Buchel, Adamus, Barron are you not ashamed that Christensen still teaches fakery of ellipse to UWO students
By Antonio J. Buckfutter 2 posts 9 views updated 2:52 PM

Re: Warning to Dan Christensen do not harpoon "Right" Whales of Canada, and does PM Trudeau need to put Dan in jail or asylum???
By Henrietta Foreskineater 2 posts 2 views updated 11:35 PM

Re: Dan Christensen harpooning the beautiful Blue Whales of Canada, why does not PM Trudeau put Dan in jail or asylum???
By Henrietta Foreskineater 2 posts 4 views updated 11:33 PM

> Dan Christensen & Kibo Parry M on>🦍 Rose M. Patten "AnalButtfuckManure" Chandler Davis, Toronto Univ
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 5:02:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > 🤮 of Math and 💩 of Physics Archimedes "Charter Member, Room
> > Temperature IQ Club" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:
> >
> Dan Christensen & Kibo Parry M on>🦍 Rose M. Patten "AnalButtfuckManure" Chandler Davis, Toronto Univ
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > Now it seems he wants nothing more than revenge for the endless string of failures in his life. He now seems to want nothing more than to create confusion and to mislead. Maybe become some >kind of cult figure
>
> In his Oct, 2021 post Dan Christensen makes it clear he is far past insane and that he never will stop his criminal-stalking (see definition in FAQ)..
>
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 7:37:57 AM UTC-5, Peter wrote:
> > Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 6:39:57 PM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> > >> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > >>> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 3:31:41 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium (AP) wrote:
> > >>>> 5th published "book"
> > >>>
> > >>> AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. He may not be all there,
> > >> He may not be all there? Are you suggesting that Mr Plutonium is
> > >> mentally deranged? If you really think so, your endless bullying of him
> > >> is truly distasteful.
> > >>
> > >
> > > So, we should all layoff Donald Trump because he is mentally deranged?
> > Don't change the subject.
> > > There is too much at stake to sit back and let the crazies run amok on social media.
> > Mr Plutonium does no one any harm, and what you have been doing for
> > years and years is nothing but bullying. If you really think that Mr
> > Plutonium is mentally ill, then it is especially distasteful.
> > --
> > The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
> > Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg
>
>
> On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 4:21:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Linda Hasenfratz, Piñata of sci.math and Rose M. Patten, Punching Bag of sci.physics MIT's George Clark "irrelevant" Jeffrey Goldstone, < Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss> fails at math and science:
> Kibo Parry M on>🦍 of Physics Cynthia Barnhart "AnalButtfuckManure" MIT
> > Dan Christensen, Gilbert Strang> fails at math and science:
> On Sunday, August 21, 1994 at 3:41:59 AM UTC-5, James Kibo Parry wrote:
> > So let me get this straight... Tipler is not a crackpot because you said
>
> On Saturday, May 8, 2021 at 5:52:45 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > 👎🏼 of Math and 🖕🏼 of Physics Arthur B.McDonald "Drag Queen of Physics"
> >James Leech Queens Univ> fails at math and science:
> >
> On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 10:35:09 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > 🐒 of Math and 🦍 of Physics Arthur B. McDonald "AnalButtfuckManure"
> > Dan Christensen> fails at math and science:
>
> On Monday, June 14, 2010 at 9:45:58 PM UTC-5, John Baez wrote:
> > Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week299.html
> Kibo Parry M on>John Baez "Village Idiot of UCR
> > Marcela Carena> fails completely at physics:
> On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 1:26:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > 🪲 of Math and 🪳 of Physics John Baez "Village Idiot of UCR
> > Marcela Carena> fails completely at physics:
> AP writes: AP no longer tolerates criminal stalkers like Kibo Parry M and shreds his posts in a shredder and spits them back at him and his paid for stalks-- NSF Dr Panchanathan ???---quoting Wikipedia ---
> Controversy
> Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
> --- end quote ---
>
>
> 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.
>
> Much the same problem with Marcela Carena of Fermi Natl. Lab with the excessive muon spin as reported in Scientific American, Oct2021. Not able to ask the most simple and basic question of physics, which is the atom's true real electron is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus or is it the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. No, Marcela Carena and John Baez rather listen to a herd community, rather than practice and do physics with a logical mind-- ask the simple questions and do the logical experiments from those logical questions.
>
> Physics, left up to Baez and his buddies of Weinberg, Glashow, Gell-Mann, Peter Higgs, Ed Witten those buddies 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 buddies 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, or are they just complete washed up and washed out. 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.
>
>
>
> ..
> .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> , . `.' ' `.
> .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> . ; .' . `. ;
> ; . ' `. . '
> . ' ` `. |
> . '. '
> . 0 0 ' `.
> ' `
> ; `
> .' `
> ; U `
> ; '; `
> : | ;.. :` `
> : `;. ```. .-; | '
> '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am John Baez, who when hearing of AP's proof that slant cut in cone is truly a Oval, never the ellipse, I did the biggest no, no you can ever do in science, for I attacked the man, rather than do the experiment. I bent over backwards to redefine the ellipse in order to deny AP credit of a discovery. For I, John Baez feels it more important to suppress the truth in science than to acknowledge the truth, and my brethren Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell seem to all feel the same way-- suppress truth of science and run and hide, hide and run.
> ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> ` . ' '
> / ` `. ' ' .
> / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> / .'' ; ` .' `
> ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> :' | ' ` , `. `
> | ' ` ' `. `
> ` ' ` ; `. |
> `.' ` ; `-'
> `...'
>
>
>
>
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
>
> #8-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
> Length: 137 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1307 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 137 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> 
> I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
>
> #3-1, 2nd published book
>
> True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
>
> Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
>
> Length: 1150 pages
>
>
> Product details
> • File Size : 2167 KB
> • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print Length : 1150 pages
> • Language: : English
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> #1324 in General Chemistry
> #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
>
> 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.
>
> My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
>
> Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
>
>
> Length: 72 pages
>
> File Size: 773 KB
> Print Length: 72 pages
> Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled