Kibo Parry M says Andrew Wiles, Terry Tao need to show more respect to the King of Science Archimedes Plutonium and publish in their college newspaper that they acknowledge the slant cut in single cone is Oval, never ellipse.

Kibo Parry M. wrote
On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Spamming
> > Failed mathematicians Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao,
> Is that any way to address the King of Math? You need to show more
> respect for your superiors, peasant!

AP writes: Kibo-- a minor correction, I am far more than the King of Math, but rather the King of Science. I know you are still reeling after 20 years with your mistake of math where you said 938 is 12% short of 945.

Failed mathematicians Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Ken Ribet, John Stillwell, Thomas Hales, Jill Pipher can not even admit that a single cone has one axis of symmetry, meaning it is not possible for the slant cut to be a ellipse but has to be a Oval.
1m views

Failed mathematicians Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Ken Ribet, John Stillwell, Thomas Hales, Jill Pipher can not even admit that a single cone has one axis of symmetry, meaning it is not possible for the slant cut to be a ellipse but has to be a Oval. Granted a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry so the slant cut is a ellipse. Failed mathematicians of Wiles, Tao, Ribet, Stillwell, Hales, Piper, should state they were wrong in a published college newspaper or in AMS that the slant cut of single cone is a OVAL. State that they were wrong and the slant cut of single cone is oval, never the ellipse.

Only in this manner of publicly admitting they were wrong can they move on to address their other huge errors of mathematics such as their inability to ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not their "limit analysis hornswaggle" because analyzing something is not proving something.

And other horrible mistakes that they use every day in class with their Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

Solution is simple for Terry Tao, just go to the UCLA student newspaper and publish the fact that you accept the slant cut in single cone to be a Oval, never the ellipse. People do not want you as a teacher, teaching math falsehoods and fakery. Even a High School student with paper cone and Kerr lid can show you the slant cut is a Oval. Last thing we need is a propaganda crank at UCLA teaching false math.

Solution is simple for Andrew Wiles, just publish in Oxford Univ student paper that he now acknowledges slant cut in single cone is oval, never ellipse. Same goes for Stillwell, Hales, Ribet, Pipher who can publish they see the light of day now on their mistakes by publishing in AMS.

Yes, when people are teachers but not qualified to teach math, AP has to post.

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?

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.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 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.

Product details
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
| /
| /
|/______ 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.

🪱 of Math and 🪰 of Physics Archimedes "Drag Queen of Science"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
> Kibo Parry M says Andrew Wiles, Terry Tao need to show more respect to the Drag Queen of Science Archimedes Plutonium and publish in their college newspaper that they acknowledge the slant cut in single cone is Oval, never ellipse.
>

Stupid Plutonium, why would I tell the King of Math to show respect to
the Drag Queen of Science, who doesn't deserve respect, and will never
get respect by repeatedly spamming garbage in newsgroups?

Of course he'd laugh and laugh and laugh at a claim as dumb as an
ellipse not being a conic section, when any high school geometry student
could prove that it is a conic section. For example:

From: qbwrfmlx@gmail.com

Here is a plane and cone
x + 1 = z
and
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = z^2

Square the first equation giving us
x^2 + 2*x + 1 = z^2

In the second equation replace z^2 with x^2 + 2*x + 1 giving us
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = x^2 + 2*x + 1

Subtract x^2 + 2*x - 1 from both sides giving us
x^2 - 2*x + 1 + 2*y^2 = 2

Replace x^2 - 2*x + 1 with (x-1)^2 giving us
(x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2

That is EXACTLY the equation of an ellipse
And there are two planes of symmetry.

No matter how you tilt or rotate an ellipse it
REMAINS an ellipse and has TWO PLANES of symmetry,
just like the intersection of a plane and cylinder
remains an ellipse no matter what the slope of the
plane is.

StupidPlutonium, did you notice the ellipse formula (x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2?
Did you notice how the (x-1)^2 term makes it symmetrical around x=1?
And NOT symmetrical around the cone axis x=0? That's where your dumb ass
gets fooled. You look at the ellipse from cutting a cone and think
"That's not symmetric around the cone's axis!" Well, it isn't, it's
symmetric around another point! But you're just too dumb and stoopid to
understand this.