Hello,

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

Here is my just new poem, and notice that the lightness in
my new poem means: The state of having a sufficient or considerable amount of natural light.

So here is my new poem:

Darkness for me is not madness

Since darkness is also a "mechanism" that brings better lightness

Darkness for me is not madness

Since better lightness is not coming just from U.S. state of Kansas

Darkness for me is not madness

Since better lightness is also coming from the USA congress

Darkness for me is not madness

Since the USA congress is also a place where to better discuss

Darkness for me is not madness

Since the better discuss is not loneless and is not being novice

Darkness for me is not madness

Since to better discuss is also like our beautiful princess

Darkness for me is not madness

Since the better discuss brings better Sageness and better soundness

Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

--

More about simulation and about prediction and more..

So as you have just noticed that i just said that i have just
invented two software scalable algorithms that i think are breakthroughs, but you have to know that one of them has needed from
me to simulate it, so i have abstracted the real world behavior
of one of this new scalable algorithms as a model that i have simulated
by software and this has permitted me to "ensure" that this new scalable algorithm of mine, that i think is a breakthrough, is "reliable" and is working perfectly, also simulation in general also permits
to not only ensure the "reliability" but also to "predict" the behavior of the real world systems.

More of my philosophy about the inventors and about algorithms and more..

If you ask me the following question:

What are you, Amine Moulay Ramdane, doing right now ?

I will say that the most important thing that i am doing
is that i have just today invented two software scalable
algorithms that i think are breakthroughs, but i am not
thinking too much about money since what i have done
is that i have invented many software scalable algorithms
and algorithms to better our humanity and our world, so as you notice
that my personality is also that i am an "inventor" that have invented
really interesting things. Also i am right now implementing some
interesting software projects from the ground up with artificial intelligence, So i invite you to read all my following thoughts so that to know more about my personality:

More of my philosophy about mathematics and the Minimizers that fit models...

I have just read the following web pages about comparing Minimizers that fit models, and i invite you to read them here:

https://docs.mantidproject.org/v3.7.1/concepts/FittingMinimizers.html

And i am working with some software projects now that need good Minimizers that fit models, and i have implemented two of them with the simplex method and with Levenberg-Marquardt, but i am not satisfied since i think that the Simplex method is better in convergence than Levenberg-Marquardt since it rarely converges to a local minimum, but i will implement or build a minimizer from the ground up with artificial intelligence that fits Models and that is much more sophisticated and much more efficient than the Simplex or Levenberg-Marquardt, so stay tuned since i am actually implementing it !

More of my philosophy of how to become rich and more..

I invite you to look at the following video that speaks
about how to become rich:

STOP Chasing Money -- Chase WEALTH. | How To get RICH | Garry Tan's Office

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hdu4DlnLIk&t

The person that is speaking on the above video is called Garry Tan,
and here he is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Tan

And I think i am smart and i invite you to look at the following
"defect" or "bug" of the above video, look here at what he is saying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hdu4DlnLIk&t=425s

So he is saying the following:

"So what is most useful, is actually acquiring skills that nobody else
has, especially in combination that are rare. If you can rebound the
ball and nobody does it quite the way you can, you can be a Hall of Fame
basketball player. And that applies to all the things in your career and
in life."

So look at the following how he is giving the "general" way:

"So what is most useful, is actually acquiring skills that nobody else
has, especially in combination that are rare."

I think that the "defect" in the above saying and "general" way of the
above video is that it is not taking into account the factor of the
usefulness to consumers or to customers since you can acquire skills
that nobody else has, especially in combination that are rare, but those
skills can still be useless to the consumers or customers, so i think
that the above saying is not so smart. So the person on the above video
has forgot the very basis of what is it of something has to be useful
for the consumers or customers, so read my following smart
"redefinition" of Utilitarianism so that to understand:

More of my philosophy about why the definition of Utilitarianism is like
an IQ test..

Notice that i think i am smart, since when i just looked rapidly at the
definition below of Utilitarianism, i have rapidly discovered a pattern
with my fluid intelligence and it is that even if the definition
of Utilitarianism is: That Utilitarianism prescribes actions that
maximise happiness and well-being for all affected individuals,
i can easily see a pattern with my fluid intelligence since i am
smart, since the pattern is that Utilitarianism maximises happiness and
well-being by well balancing taking into account not
only the present but also the future, i mean that responability
is inherent to the definition since the well balancing forces us
to be responsability in the present or today so that to maximize
correctly happiness and well being tomorrow or in the future.

I can give you another IQ test that i have rapidly invented and
here it is:

So i will give my example of pattern recognition with my fluid
intelligence that permits to understand, here it is:

So if you want to go fast from my country Morocco to another country
called USA , how will you do it ? or what will you do ?

It is like my IQ test..

So if you answer that you need for example to use a fast airplane to go
fast from Morocco to USA, your answer is a stupid answer, so you need
the smart answer, so i will answer that the fast airplane too has to be
"reliable" and your "health" has too to permit it and the "weather" has
too to permit it, so now you are clearly noticing that you need to take
into account many "factors" so that to go fast from Morocco to USA, so
you are clearly noticing that being smart needs also a good plan.

More precision of my philosophy about Utilitarianism..

I invite you to read the following definition of what is Utilitarianism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

So as you are noticing, it says that Utilitarianism prescribes actions
that maximise happiness and well-being for all affected individuals,
but i think that Utilitarianism is not idiotic since it maximises
happiness and well-being by well balancing taking into account not
only the present but also the future.

So you can read all my other proverbs that i have just invented quickly
here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ZyUvFt_nix8

More of my philosophy about correlation and about diversity and more..

I think i am smart, and i will say to look again at what is saying
the Ph.D Katherine W. Phillips that is the Paul Calello Professor of
Leadership and Ethics Management at Columbia Business School(Read about
her here: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/profile/katherine_phillips):

"Large data-set studies have an obvious limitation: They only show that
diversity is correlated with better performance, not that it causes
better performance."

So i will say that this Ph.D and other researchers are not so smart,
since notice how is speaking the Ph.D Katherine W. Phillips in the
following article:

How Diversity Makes Us Smarter

Read more here:

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_diversity_makes_us_smarter

So notice that she is not saying that human diversity is a "mechanism"
that can cause "competition" or more competition between people, and
then competition can be the cause of better performance, so you are
noticing that the above Ph.D and researchers are trying to measure it
empirically, but i think that this kind of measuring is not a correct
measuring, since what i am showing you by my way of thinking is the fact
that there is a "tendency" in human diversity that it causes competition
or more competition, so it causes better performance, so then we can
notice that by not following there way of empirical measuring we can still
know about the process. So as i said, i think this Ph.D and other
researchers are not thinking and abstracting correctly since from my
saying below we can notice that human Diversity in a global world or in
a society or in a group brings more "competition" between people, so it
makes us work harder and better cognitively and socially, but if we are
not being the right human diversity and we are working harder and better
cognitively and socially, then i think being human diversity can still
"keep" or "maintain" the working harder and better cognitively and
socially, also human diversity brings different human perspectives or
views and it brings different human experiences and different human
knowledges and it is good for creativity and innovation since it is also
good for divergent thinking that enhance creativity and innovation.

maybe they are poets, but failed mathematicians Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, Andrew Beal, Terence Tao, Ken Ribet, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher when if ever are they going to admit the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, and these failures of mathematics, when are they going to ever give a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, instead of their con-art limit analysis of FTC, for these math idiots some how think that by analyzing something is proving something-- mindless idiots of math, not mathematicians.

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```.....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'...          ..-''    '     '  Hi I am Andrew Wiles, the grand failure of mathematics with my ellipse the slant cut in a single cone. And my never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why, I am so stupid in mathematics that I could not even spot the error in Euler's fake proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in exponent 3, because I am Andrew Wiles chasing after fame and fortune but never the truth of mathematics.
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``.........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```.....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'...          ..-''    '     '  Hi I am Terence Tao the supposed boy-genius of mathematics, but if the truth be known, I am mostly a loser of mathematics for I simply cannot even admit the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, and this bad eyesight of mine in geometry, keeps me from ever doing a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Analysis, for I am too lazy to look for the truth and rather throw up a limit analysis con-art hornswaggle.
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``.........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'

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 15Dec2021. 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". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

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?

Thanks Barrett, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh
for halting the abortion of White Rhinos,
the last two remaining white rhinos on Earth.
We have only 2 remaining white rhinos alive
in the entire world. As humanity goes from
8 billion to 9 billion. Thank goodness they
taught you pragmatism, a wholly American
philosophy at the schools you attended and
graduated from. Thank goodness Supreme
Court Justices can reason and analyze the
world around them and not vote out of sheer
dogma and opinion which the lovely school
of American Pragmatism so well teaches not
only the USA but the entire rest of the world.
That reasoning should be scientific, not
dogma and sensibilities.

And Supreme Court of USA, why not refer the upcoming Abortion and that of Covid-19 hearings -- refer that to the Science Technical Court, a court composed of trained specialists who know the science behind technology-- semiconductors or airplanes or military hardware, or biology or medicine. Subjects beyond the education of Barrett, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh to make a careful and considered vote as to the proper way to proceed. When it comes to issues of science, our Supreme Court should refer it to a technical court.

For we see, now in the pandemic, that Israel refers issues of biology to a science technical panel, not a group of dogma filled judges.

AP