🦗 of Math and 🐜 of Physics Archimedes "math hater" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> No-one at McGill can admit to errors of math, logic or physics. Instead they keep teaching ellipse is a conic when it is truly a oval.

You are still trying to decide which is the best ellipse proof?
Maybe this one??

Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
in the proof:

^ x
|
-+- <= x=h
.' | `.
. | .
| | |
' | '
`. | .'
y <----------+ <= x=0

Cone (side view):
.
/|\
/ | \
/b | \
/---+---' <= x = h
/ |' \
/ ' | \
/ ' | \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
/ a | \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse

qed

Kibo, how damaging could a flying super rectum of Dan Christensen be on the McGill college campus. And is that what is preventing McGill from teaching a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. In fear that the Super Rectum will come flying around the corner at any moment.

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 11:06:34 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 6:41:06 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 4:51:18 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

19th published book

World's First Proof of Collatz Conjecture// Math proof series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 20Aug2021. This is AP's 19th published book.

Preface: Old Math's Collatz conjecture, 1937, was this: If you land on an even number, you divide by 2 until you come to an odd number. If you come to or land on an odd number, you do a 3N+1 then proceed further. The conjecture then says that no matter what number you start with, it ends up being 1..

What the Collatz proof of math tells us, is that so very often mathematicians pose a conjecture in which their initial formulation of the conjecture is murky, obfuscation and poorly designed statement. Such poorly designed statements can never be proven true or false. An example that comes to mind of another poorly designed conjecture is the No Odd Perfect Conjecture, in which the statement is obfuscation of factors. So for the odd number 9, is it 1+3, or is it 1+ 3 + 3. So when a mathematics conjecture is full of obfuscation and error in the statement, then these type of conjectures never have a proof. And takes a person with a logical mind to fix and straighten out the conjecture statement and then provide a proof, thereof.

Cover picture: when I think of Collatz, I think of a slide, a slide down and so my French curve is the best slide I can think of, other than a slide-ruler, but a slide ruler is slide across.

Length: 61 pages

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PS98K5H
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1955 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 61 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #212,131 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #4 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #9 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #32 in Number Theory (Books)

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

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 6:09:53 AM UTC-4, bwr fml wrote:
>
> > But I don't think that is what Linda Hasenfratz really want. I think Rose M Patten want to be recognized for Michael Meighan great claims.
>
> Linda Hasenfratz may be giving Rose M Patten too much credit here. Judging by James Leech bizarre antics here, Arthur B MacDonald has given up obtaining any kind of positive recognition. Now it seems Arthur B MacDonald 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 with his vacations in Bermuda with Linda Hasenfratz in the next covid 19 lockdown.
>
> Dan

AP writes: well said Dan and bwr, well said for a 8 year nonstop criminal stalker that you are.

6) Criminal-Stalking is defined as constant attacking of another person's character exclusive of science content in his/her threads for more than 1 year. In the case of criminal stalking the attackee, can just shred the attackers post and repost. For stalking is not science, nor academics nor debate nor discussion. Stalking is insanity and criminal behavior.
AP writes: AP no longer tolerates any Criminal Stalker and thus shreds his attack and spits the byproduct back into the lap of the stalker.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2
AP's 202nd book of science-- Proof that the muon is the real true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole or what is called electricity, proven by the BetaVoltaic device. In the course of writing my book 201st where
12:55 PM

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
11
AP's 201st book of Science// AP attempts to theorize the NASA 0.005% yearly increase in Solar Radiation measurement.
12:18 PM

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
39
AP's 199th book A book of New Age, New Wave math conjectures
Sep 18

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
85
159th book on Science from AP// AP on Meteorology-- weather science by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium Sep 10, 2020 2:02 PM to sci.physics I am sort of putting off this book for last. I know how complex and complicated is Weather....
Sep 17

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
5
189th book of AP // Alzheimers disease is a rheumatoid arthritis of the brain caused from glia and microglia cells attacking the brain. Scientific American, August 2021 talks of the Microglia. Something I never heard of before, and just reading the
Sep 17

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
19
197th book of science by AP// Nylon so bad for the environment-- it is non biodegradable, and buy and use alternatives It sheds microscopic fibers that end up in oceans and rivers every time it is washed. Harsh chemicals used in making nylon,
Sep 17

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
4
92nd book of AP-- FUNCTION AND PURPOSE OF VIRUSES// Biophysics series, book 9 By Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 17

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3
AP's 200th book of Science// Set theory never belonged in mathematics but rather Logic.
Sep 15

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
50
AP's 130th book// Plutonium Atom National Park in South Dakota// Sociology series, book 5 by Archimedes Plutonium 130th book by AP// Plutonium Atom National Park in South Dakota Table of Contents -------------------------- 1) Last Will & Testament
Sep 14

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2
God bless India, God bless, you made my day, today, on word that Cheetahs return to India, God Bless! // SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH
Sep 10

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3
Since AP conquered most of Old Math conjectures, time for AP to assemble the new set of Conjectures to be proven for the future.
Sep 9

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
103
AP's 151st book, part 4, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college
Sep 8

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
5
60th AP book //more evidence that the Moon was a Earth satellite only recently-- in Cretaceous was the Moon acquired and before then, Earth was a solitary planet. 60th book of AP. Search for the time the Moon was Earth's satellite// geology
Sep 5

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2
Cauchy was wicked in his "limit concept" and devised it only to put down his smartest students.
Sep 5

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
198th book of science by AP// East meets West over Toilet Paper and the best way forward, and East Wins. Recently in a comedy sketch I made fun of a bunch of idiot spammers in sci.math and sci.physics on their going to the bathroom and taking a
Sep 3

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
50
80th book Reincarnation: A Pure Geometry model of Faraday Law
Sep 2

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2
Disturbing physics article by The Economist, 28Aug2021
> to Plutonium Atom Universe > --- Quoting the Economist 28Aug2021 --- > Bye, bye, little
Sep 1

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

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 6:09:53 AM UTC-4, bwr fml wrote:
>
> > But I don't think that is what Linda Hasenfratz really want. I think Rose M Patten want to be recognized for Michael Meighan great claims.
>
> Linda Hasenfratz may be giving Rose M Patten too much credit here. Judging by James Leech bizarre antics here, Arthur B McDonald has given up obtaining any kind of positive recognition. Now it seems Arthur B McDonald 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 with his vacations in Bermuda with Linda Hasenfratz in the next covid 19 lockdown.
>
> Dan

AP writes: well said Dan and bwr, well said for a 8 year nonstop criminal stalker that you are.

6) Criminal-Stalking is defined as constant attacking of another person's character exclusive of science content in his/her threads for more than 1 year. In the case of criminal stalking the attackee, can just shred the attackers post and repost. For stalking is not science, nor academics nor debate nor discussion. Stalking is insanity and criminal behavior.
AP writes: AP no longer tolerates any Criminal Stalker and thus shreds his attack and spits the byproduct back into the lap of the stalker.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2
AP's 202nd book of science-- Proof that the muon is the real true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole or what is called electricity, proven by the BetaVoltaic device. In the course of writing my book 201st where
12:55 PM

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
11
AP's 201st book of Science// AP attempts to theorize the NASA 0.005% yearly increase in Solar Radiation measurement.
12:18 PM

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
39
AP's 199th book A book of New Age, New Wave math conjectures
Sep 18

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
85
159th book on Science from AP// AP on Meteorology-- weather science by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium Sep 10, 2020 2:02 PM to sci.physics I am sort of putting off this book for last. I know how complex and complicated is Weather....
Sep 17

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
5
189th book of AP // Alzheimers disease is a rheumatoid arthritis of the brain caused from glia and microglia cells attacking the brain. Scientific American, August 2021 talks of the Microglia. Something I never heard of before, and just reading the
Sep 17

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
19
197th book of science by AP// Nylon so bad for the environment-- it is non biodegradable, and buy and use alternatives It sheds microscopic fibers that end up in oceans and rivers every time it is washed. Harsh chemicals used in making nylon,
Sep 17

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
4
92nd book of AP-- FUNCTION AND PURPOSE OF VIRUSES// Biophysics series, book 9 By Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 17

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3
AP's 200th book of Science// Set theory never belonged in mathematics but rather Logic.
Sep 15

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
50
AP's 130th book// Plutonium Atom National Park in South Dakota// Sociology series, book 5 by Archimedes Plutonium 130th book by AP// Plutonium Atom National Park in South Dakota Table of Contents -------------------------- 1) Last Will & Testament
Sep 14

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2
God bless India, God bless, you made my day, today, on word that Cheetahs return to India, God Bless! // SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH
Sep 10

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3
Since AP conquered most of Old Math conjectures, time for AP to assemble the new set of Conjectures to be proven for the future.
Sep 9

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
103
AP's 151st book, part 4, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college
Sep 8

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
5
60th AP book //more evidence that the Moon was a Earth satellite only recently-- in Cretaceous was the Moon acquired and before then, Earth was a solitary planet. 60th book of AP. Search for the time the Moon was Earth's satellite// geology
Sep 5

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2
Cauchy was wicked in his "limit concept" and devised it only to put down his smartest students.
Sep 5

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
198th book of science by AP// East meets West over Toilet Paper and the best way forward, and East Wins. Recently in a comedy sketch I made fun of a bunch of idiot spammers in sci.math and sci.physics on their going to the bathroom and taking a
Sep 3

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
50
80th book Reincarnation: A Pure Geometry model of Faraday Law
Sep 2

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2
Disturbing physics article by The Economist, 28Aug2021
> to Plutonium Atom Universe > --- Quoting the Economist 28Aug2021 --- > Bye, bye, little
Sep 1

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Martin Pinsonnault, Victoria Olds fake math and science
On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Lex Renner, Gordon Sinnamon fake math and science
>

AP writes: AP no longer tolerates any Criminal Stalker and thus shreds his attack and spits the byproduct back into the lap of the stalker. Especially the 8 year long insane Canadian Dan Christensen

>
> Linda Hasenfratz is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. Victoria Olds may not be all there, but Lex Renner fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives.
>

Snipped the insane Canadian...

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

Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon

Amit Chakma (chem engr)

Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang

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

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

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

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

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

XXXXXXXXXXX

Principles of sci.math

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXXXXXXXX
3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

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.

> 👎🏼 McGill Univ of Math and 🖕🏼 Toronto Univ of Physics "Drag Queen of Physics"
On Saturday, May 8, 2021 at 5:52:45 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 👎🏼 McGill Univ of Math and 🖕🏼 Toronto Univ of Physics "Drag Queen of Physics"

AP writes: why Kibo Parry Moroney, is it because none can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and both think the electron of atoms is 0.5MeV when in truth it is the muon?

Kibo Parry M on Andrew Wiles "klutz of math" NSF Dr. Panchanathan flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
On Monday, September 20, 2021 at 1:19:45 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🪲 of Math and 🪳 of Physics Andrew Wiles "Village Idiot of Oxford Univ"
> Roger Penrose, Philip J. Hanlon > fails at math:

> Because scientific notation uses log10 to derive the power component.
> Because we use Base 10, not Base e, StupidPenrose. Duh-h-h!
>
> Congratulations, Philip J. Hanlon, I think this is your dumbest comment this
> month. But you still have 10 days to outdo yourself, and I'm certain
> you're up for that task.

SCI.MATH FAQ, 20Sep2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running well-- today's topics-- take a look at the only pure science newsgroup, free of spammers and police drag net spam, free of stalkers.

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

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

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

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

XXXXXXXXXXX

Principles of sci.math

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXXXXXXXX
3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

5th published book

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.

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.

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.

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 "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> blithered:
> 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

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.

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.

2>Boycott Samsung & Hyundai until they free their moon bears.

Dan Christensen masterpiece painting of freeing Moon Bears.

\\ ("`****/").
\\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
\\ (_&_.)' ._ )
\\ `--' / /
\\ ==1(li)===========
\\
\\
two caged Moon Bears caged all their life and bile extracted

\\ ("`****//'").
\\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
\\ (_&_.)' ._ )
\\ `--' / /
\\ ==1(li)===========
\\
\\


More people reading AP's newsgroup than sci.math for math science.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

SCI.MATH FAQ, 24Sep2021// 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.

Learn why and how Old Math screwed up on (1) Ln(1.00005) because they thought Y=1/x is the log function when it is not (2) never the truth that slant cut in cone is Oval, not the ellipse (3) never the truth that a sine or cosine wave are semicircle, never sinusoid (4) hideously wrong in logic where they teach Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction because Boole was a moron on AND truth table is not TFFF but rather is TTTF.

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

XXXXXXXXXXX

Principles of sci.math

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXXXXXXXX

Too much religion spam in sci.math lately with Amine doing the spamming. Take it to a religion newsgroup Amine, not sci.math.

***New news***

Stripping college degrees.

AP argues that college degrees are serious business and a holder should wear his/her degree proudly throughout the rest of their lives. AP argues that the Internet has been a new window on academics, and this new window shines a light on the fact that many receive college degrees but should never have been given one, Earle Jones, Dan Christensen, John Gabriel, Zelos Malum, Jan Burse, Kibo Parry Moroney. And their degrees from colleges should be made "null and void".

The Internet has become a new testing arena for all students across the world, and if you screw up badly in the Internet, should mean, no final degree from college, or the nullification of an existing degree.

College Degrees in science, every single one of them, should be seen as serious business and held to the highest standards. If anyone wears their college degree in science that puts shame on science, should have their degree made null and void. Such as being a professor yet unwilling to be vaccinated. John Gabriel, BWR, Earle Jones, Kibo Parry M., Dan Christensen, Zelos Malum, Markus Klyver, Jan Burse if any has a degree in science and engineering , should have their degrees made null and void. I decree it.

The null and void is not a single incident but years and years of "spamming mistakes". All of the above have been spamming their mistakes for 10 years or more. They should not have a degree from any college in science or engineering.

The education system needs a means of nullification as well as the -- passing out of degrees.

XXXXXXXXX

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in reply to leading mathematician of Nederlands Klyver:
Sep 8, 2021, 2:30 PM
to sci.math (on a good day when the first 15 posts are not all about spammer Gabriel)

Banning the John Gabriel- Zelos Malum actor-acting con-math show from sci.math.
3k views

Gabriel is lead actor, but joined in by Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Kibo Parry M, Earle Jones with his logo picture of phallus in the mouth in daytime (Earle is a X-rated actor and parental guidance urged). At night time joined in by B-rated actors Zelos (bozo) Malum, Markus Klyver (drop kicked from Sweden to Dutch Netherlands).

PURPOSE: Have 15 worthless scree threads of Gabriel to be on the front page of sci. math constantly flooding sci.math and thus, taking over sci.math by that mindless worthless twit of John Gabriel. South Africa has no acting school industry like Bollywood or Hollywood and so gutter ghetto what is commonly called in parts of USA as "white trash" losers like Gabriel has to make due by acting in sci.math and destroying the lifeblood of sci.math.

Mommy, can Gabriel cause cancer? No, I don't want you reading his posts.

Gabriel was kicked out of every Internet outlet he ever had the sorry attendance of meeting. And a whole entire industry in computer social media was created, surrounding Gabriel, to disarm and cast off whereever Gabriel treaded his foots in. One only has to see how many YouTube movies had to be sterilized and sanitized after Gabriel had been kicked out of YouTube, worse than having to take bleach and sterilize furniture and floor from viral pandemics so the house pets of cats and dogs could return in our lives.

Sci.math is Gabriel's last stronghold of play acting.

XXXXXXXX

Solution for block spam such as "hahaha". Ban them forever from the newsgroup after 2 warnings, if they do it again-- lifetime ban from sci.math and sci.physics.

Solution for Block Spam "ay1" with yellow emoji faces-- pull plug on entire ISP // SCI.MATH FAQ 2Sep2021

Troubles with Block Spam-- 15 screes of b.s. flooding all at once. Solution, pull the plug on entire ISP, even if an entire country where the spam emanates. And give time to our engineers to craft a U shaped funnel that the spam shit emanates but funneled back into the mouthes of the spamming jackarses. Also fitted with a baby bib for the insane.

I am contemplating emailing Larry Page and Sergey Brin to set their finest engineers to work on a U funnel that reroutes this mindless spam from entering sci.physics and sci.math. The email should reach Larry's and Sergey's desk faster than the pony express.

Dan Christensen shits in the face Canadian logicians John Woods, Carrie Jenkins, Ted Honderich, Katalin Bimbo.

I used to think it was Kibo Parry M. the sickest of sick in sci.math and sci.physics. But only now is it apparent to me that Dan Christensen has faded into insanity far far worse than Kibo. And that Dan will likely become violent.


On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 8:54:05 PM UTC-5, 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? There is too much at stake to sit back and let the crazies run amok on social media.
>
> Dan

AP just has not yet found the decent, thinking people who will put Dan Christensen into the clinic, pyscho clinic where he belongs. For Dan is a very disturbed individual that never belongs in education nor even on social media.


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 


#6-2, 27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T

If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)

And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F


Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, 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 unknown, undefined end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Length: 86 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•

#6-3, 143rd published book

DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.

Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.

Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.

Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled
•
•

#6-4, 100th published book

Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

Dan Christensen shits in face Michael Meighen, Rose M. Patten
1-- Dan Christensen is a 7 year criminal stalker compared to Stanford Univ. mindless fuckdog Earle Jones, criminal stalker for 25 years, yet Stanford keeps letting this fuckdog drag down the University

Univ Western Ontario rated top science-bigot school in Canada by Dan Christensen
On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 12:03:10 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

...
..- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
..' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
.. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
.. ' ` `. |
.. '. '
.. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
..' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' I am Christensen,I am such a stupid insane imp of math and logic that I thought a vertex has a derivative, that distinct means not-distinct, and that 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. And I love spam reading of vvgra and tomato hello, and I am a failure of academics and so I spend most days making out hate-lists of people who actually succeed in science for my pea sized brain is envious and jealous of those who succeed in science yet I failed in science.
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
....'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'

Dan Christensen on James Leech,> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er... > > Dan

On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 5:42:56 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 5:19:34 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> On Mon Oct 4 13:58:59 2021 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > add to AP's 5th book SUSPEND ALL COLLEGE LOGIC CLASSES, UNTIL THEY FIX THEIR ERRORS...
> >
> > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > 12:48 AM (15 hours ago)
> >
> >
> >
> > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> >
> > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > unread,
> > 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.
> *
> False conclusion.
> *
> If my hamburger is composed of atoms, then my hamburger must be an atom.
>
> earle
> *

Stanford Shithead Jones has a disconnect with Logical Reasoning. A butterfly is composed of many atoms, but a butterfly is not a single-atom.

All matter is made up of atoms.

The Universe has matter, and if not a atom, then there is the exception to the logic that All matter is made up of atoms. Then we cannot say the Atomic Theory "all things are made up of atoms for we have to exclude the Universe."

The fallacy that Jones makes is that his small mind never studied Universal quantifiers of logic, for that arswipe Jones cannot even do a slant cut in cone and understand it is an oval not a ellipse.

Earle Jones the mindless fuckdog of Stanford Univ never studied logic, and could not reason himself out of a paper sack.

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, but try telling that to a Stanford anal fuckdog named Jones.

So what is in play is the Universal Physic law of Atomic Theory

And the Universe itself.

So if the Atomic theory is TRUE, which Feynman said in his opening pages of Lectures on Physics. 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 has matter.

So anyone with a logic mind not a gay driven hate stalker buttfuck mind of Stanford's Earle Jones.

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.

Fuckdogs like Earle Jones can make up any sentence as a excuse-- hamburger or cat or house or Venus or car. But the fuckdog Jones never took Logic, never had a single day in his entire life where he had straight correct thoughts about anything. And a fuckdog like Earle Jones of Stanford could never understand that when AP places Atomic Theory up against the Universe itself, that such is a special relationship of Logic.

Not the fuckdog Jones placing atomic theory up against a hamburger. Earle, go back to sucking a cock as shown in your logo picture.

Stanford University just has no manners, none at all, by letting this crazied shithead Earle Jones constantly peckering away with his criminal stalking on sci.math and sci.physics. When Stanford should get Earle Jones into a psychiatric clinic and placed on medication, as Earle drags himself down along with Stanford University.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

Dan Christensen & Kibo Parry M on>🦍 of Physics Michael Meighen "AnalButtfuckManure" McGill 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

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:

Dan Christensen makes it clear 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

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.

Dan Christensen &Kibo on>Physics Michael Meighen "AnalButtfuckManure" McGill 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

AP writes: AP no longer tolerates criminal stalkers like Dan Christensen with his nonstop hate attacks and shreds his posts in a shredder and spits them back at him.

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:

Dan Christensen makes it clear 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

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.

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 10:21:26 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
2> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of McGill Univ and Michael Meighen
2> Dan Christensen on>Physics Michael Meighen "AnalButtfuckManure" McGill Univ
3> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
3> > 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
>
4> AP writes: AP no longer tolerates criminal stalkers like Dan Christensen with his nonstop hate attacks and shreds his posts in a shredder and spits them back at him.
>
> 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:
>
4> Dan Christensen makes it clear 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
>
>
5> 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 ---
6> 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
> y z
> | /
> | /
> |/______ x
>
> More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci..physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
>
> In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
>
> I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
>
> There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium

Dan Christensen on> Michael Meighen "AnalButtfuckManure" McGill Univ

AP writes: is Dan Christensen bald? Is that the reason he spends so much time on baldness.

4
unread,
Russell claimed that "The present king of France is bald" is false. It isn't.
3:27 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
,
Mostowski Collapse
3 unread,
The Vacuous Truth about the Present King of France
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 3:48:54 PM UTC-4, Mostowski Collapse wrote: > Looks like Dan-O-
3:24 PM


> On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 10:21:26 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> 2> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of McGill Univ and Michael Meighen
> 2> Dan Christensen on>Physics Michael Meighen "AnalButtfuckManure" McGill Univ
> 3> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> 3> > 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
> >
> 4> AP writes: AP no longer tolerates criminal stalkers like Dan Christensen with his nonstop hate attacks and shreds his posts in a shredder and spits them back at him.
> >
> > 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:
> >
> 4> Dan Christensen makes it clear 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
> >
> >
> 5> 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 ---
> 6> 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
> > y z
> > | /
> > | /
> > |/______ x
> >
> > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> >
> > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> >
> > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> >
> > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> >
> > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium

Having problems with Russells "the X is Y" is also quite bizarr.

Dan Christensen schrieb:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 6:09:53 AM UTC-4, bwr fml wrote:
>
>> But I don't think that is what you really want. I think you want to be recognized for your great claims.
>
> You may be giving him too much credit here. Judging by his bizarre antics here, he has given up obtaining any kind of positive recognition. 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 with his "Atom God Pu."
>
> Dan
>

On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 4:54:46 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Having problems with Russells "the X is Y" is also quite bizarr.
>

Is Jan Burse jumping ship from the moron Dan Christensen and his sidekick Kibo Parry Moroney along with minor runt sidekicks Zelos Malum and cocksucker logo pictures Earle Jones????

Well, Jan, welcome aboard to True Logic, True Math.

But before you enter our ship of truth, you need decontamination from your brainwashed past education.

You need to shed off that insanity brainwash you still harbor-- your AND and OR connectors, before you can begin to understand the IF->Then, that involves the failure Russell of his "Present King of France is bald".

Is your mind still good enough for the delousing and decontamination your body needs, Jan??

So, can that 1 marble logic mind of yours Jan absorb the fact that AND is not what Boole said of TFFF, but is rather, truthfully that of TTTF, since given any long string of statements, if just one of thousands is true, we do not throw the baby out in the bathwater, no, instead we assign the entire string as True. And that is something the fool and village idiot of logic Boole never grasped nor did any of his successors like Russell, Wittgenstein, Godel, all 1 marbled fools of logic.

So, Jan, can you take decontamination or are you spent out like the moron Dan Christensen, the humpty dumpty of academics that is broke before even falling off.

Can you accept the truth, Jan, that AND truth table is TTTF and OR table is FTTF.

If not, you need to be thrown overboard out to sea once again as a worthless tripe in Logic.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 11:06:34 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 6:41:06 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 4:51:18 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:

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

Kibo is this why McGill Univ has so many student victims of Dan Christensen's 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and their propaganda that a ellipse is slant cut in cone when in truth it is the Oval, and never a geometry proof of calculus. Is it because Michael Meighan and the faculty at McGill are too busy watching Dan Christensen Super Rectum fly around on campus?

Kibo, why cannot Philip Hanlon at Dartmouth College take the time of 5 minutes like every student in the world and roll up a paper cone, drop a Kerr or Mason lid inside and tilt it and prove to himself that the slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. Kibo, why is Dr. Hanlon and Stanford's Dr.. Marc Tessier-Lavigne running and hiding from the truth of mathematics, are they scared of the truth. Just like Andrew Wiles never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, only his "limit analysis hornswaggle". Does Dr.Hanlon and Stanford Univ still believe Calculus is "not geometry" not geometry as the excuse and reason that Dartmouth and Stanford has professor there to teach a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. See AP's proofs below.

Kibo, why do you resort to swearing instead of doing math in sci.math? Is that what Dr. Panchanathan at the National Science Foundation, NSF, pays you and instructs you to do in sci.math-- swear instead of doing math. Of course, Kibo, your 938 is 12% short of 945, does not endear you to any college or math professor.
On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 5:42:43 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "AnalButtfuckManure"
> fails at math and science:

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)

Dan & NSF Francois-Philippe Champagne why is Arthur B. McDonald, Queens Univ, UCR John Baez, and Marcela Carena failures 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 even do simple simple Algebra of 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.

Ted Hewitt & Martha Crago are you paying Dan Christensen to defame and stalk posters in sci.math going on 8 years now nonstop?
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:21:16 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of
Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie

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)

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

Is Dan soaking up Amine spam? Is Amine spam actually Kibo Parry M.

Amine Moulay Ramdane's profile photo
Amine Moulay Ramdane
unread,
More of my philosophy about feminism and more..
Hello, More of my philosophy about feminism and more.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart
9:28 PM

Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
,
Dan Christensen
2 unread,
10/17/2021: New visitors to sci.math: Learn about the New Calculus - the first rigorous formulation in history.
9:25 PM

Amine Moulay Ramdane's profile photo
Amine Moulay Ramdane
unread,
More of my philosophy about the way of survival..
Hello, More of my philosophy about the way of survival.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart
8:53 PM

Amine Moulay Ramdane's profile photo
Amine Moulay Ramdane
unread,
More of my philosophy about the too much materialism..
Hello, More of my philosophy about the too much materialism.. I am a white arab, and i think i am
8:03 PM

This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
John Baez's profile photo
John Baez
, …
4 This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 290)
Christensen on logic failures Joachim Lambeck, John Woods, Doug Walton, Katalin Bimbo, Carrie Jenkins
7:49 PM

Amine Moulay Ramdane's profile photo
Amine Moulay Ramdane
unread,
More of my philosophy about the rich..
Hello, More of my philosophy about the rich.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have
7:41 PM

Amine Moulay Ramdane's profile photo
Amine Moulay Ramdane
unread,
Here is my just new so important proverb
Hello, I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms
7:00 PM

This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
John Baez's profile photo
John Baez
, …
3 This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 291)

Univ Toronto and Queen's Univ and Univ Western comparing Dan math to AP's Mathopedia see below AP's Mathopedia.

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:43:25 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> In Dan Christensen's OWN WORDS here:
>
Re: More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics.
by Dan Christensen Jun 28, 2021, 2:33 PM
>
>
> “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
>
>
On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
>
> Dan
>
> “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 Dan Christensen and Univ Western Ontario classrooms “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
>
> Dan 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]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
> --November 9, 2017
>
> Kibo Parry M. prefering AP's Mathopedia over Dumb Dan Christensens DC Proof gimmick toy.
>
>Re: 5) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 67 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. Last revision was 8JUN2021. Under-Construction: AP recently is reinventing Multivariable Calculus, and will end up throwing out Old Math's Gradient theorem, Green's
by
Michael Moroney
Jun 17, 2021, 11:57 AM
>
>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: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND
53 posts by 9 authors
by Dan Christensen 11/9/17
>
>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,
>
>
> And if that wasn't weird enough...
>
>
Re: Trump smarter in math than MIT & UC, Riverside Math departments, smarter in math than Terry Tao, Ed Witten, Appel & Hakken
by Dan Christensen 11/10/16
>
Re: Lisa Thompson,Univ Toronto & Western Ontario, Alex Buchel,Jan Cami,Gordon F. West,Michael B. Walker, -- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole, to busy on Dan
By Dan Christensen 1 post 3 views updated 1:12 PM
>
Re: 2Canada's sh)thead stalker Dan in sci.math 1 OR 3 = 4, does Justin Trudeau, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, is that what science is in Canada-- stalking bullies
by Dan Christensen
>
Re: Rik Chandler,One pint short of an empty bladder // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 19 posts 99 views updated Sep 9
>
Re: Rik Chandler,Useful as a chocolate teapot // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 16 posts 101 views updated Sep 9
>
Re: Zurich's ETH Dr.Thomas Willwacher's stupid all his life in teaching Calculus, never a picture diagram of FTC// as evidence- Jan Burse
4 posts by 3 authors 
12/13/17
by Dan Christensen
>
Re: 1.5- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
By Pete Smith 3 posts 19 views updated Sep 12
>
>Re: 1.4- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
By Pete Smith 2 posts 9 views updated Sep 12
>
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Above was Dan's contribution to math in sci.math.

This is one book out of 151 that AP posted to sci.math, sci.physics. Who? Ever let a moron like Dan Christensen into public education???

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. It was a serendipity discovery that when taking the Ln(1.00005) the true value is exactly 0.00005 and not 0..000049998... 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.