Stop and HALT the boiling of live lobsters and live crabs
>
>
>
> ////////
> |:---[.]
> |( _J
> | ^ ( _|
> / \_____)
> / _____ \
> | / \ .
> | | |
> \ /\ /\__
> | | \/---
> \ \ )________________\\ \\\
> | >_____/_____)============
> \__________/ ==============
> / \ -----------------------------// ///
> | | ~~
> \ \\
> \ |\
> \ | \
> \ | |
> | | |
> | | |
> | / |
> |________/____|
> (_________)____)
>

Olcott can David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is that totally foreign to them? Mind you, not a limit analysis hornswaggle for that is not geometry, limit analysis is not even a math proof for anyone can analysis things, analysis this post and only math hypocrites would think it is a proof.

Olcott can Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, ever ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or does that thought fly way too above their heads?



Olcott, why cannot Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine ask the question which is the atom's real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Is it because they cannot even do logic correctly with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction?
>
> Olcott why does Cambridge Univ Stephen J. Toope, David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain keep teaching Boole error filled logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and these crazies still think the slant cut in cone is a ellipse when in fact it is a Oval. Why brainwash and pollute more students like Pete Olcott who is crazy enough as it is.
>
> Olcott why is noone in Cambridge physics able to ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith?? Do they not have a brain to ask a simple question????
>
> 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)
>
> 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
> •
>
>