AP requires for John Baez to go to UC Riverside student newspaper publishing a apology, that he was a dumbo in thinking the slant cut in single cone was a ellipse, not realizing the single cone has just 1 axis of symmetry and thus, never possible to produce a ellipse, but the slant cut in cylinder is always a ellipse. So John needs to apologize to all those young students for his mindless geometry mistake.

Mind you, 2 cones connected in this manner <> can yield an ellipse at slant cut and is the reason I keep putting the phrase "single cone".

So John, grow up and be a real mathematician and admit your mistakes, just as you would grade students who make errors.

By the way admit that you never knew logic and logical reasoning, how to think straight and think clear, for you use Boole logic riddled in error with Boole's 2 OR 1 = 3, with AND as of all things, AND as subtraction. So what the hell are you doing in math or physics???? John Baez, wasting your time and your students. No wonder you cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, nor is your mindless "quantum foam" ever tell physics that the real electron of atom's is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In all-- John Baez, you are more of a menace to science than ever a teacher.

The 169th book of Science by AP// 4 TESTS of Consistency of Mathematics (1) calculus (2) harmonic series (3) valid functions, (4) dimensions.

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 12, 2022, 2:35:35 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
The 228th book of Science for AP// Harmonic series of Oresme corrected and where the numerical value of 0.5MeV for monopole comes from// by Archimedes Plutonium

> Decimal 10 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
> The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0
>
> Decimal 100 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.01+0.02+..+0.99+1.0 in 100 Grid is 50.5
> The summation of all numbers of 100 Grid is 10001x50.= 500050.
>
> Decimal 1000 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.001+0.002+..+0.999+1.0 in 1000 Grid is 500.5
> The summation of all numbers of 1000 Grid is 1000001x500.= 500000500.
>

Alright, so the curious argument I am going to make is that in the True Numbers of Mathematics, the Decimal Grid Numbers we have a amplification of numbers whose prefix digit is either 5 or 1 and being scale numbers

1, 10, 100, 1000, ....

or

5, 50, 500, 5000, .... only with the 5 prefix it is a bit more than all zero digits after the prefix 5.

In physics we need to explain why the Dirac Magnetic Monopole is 0.5MeV actually in experiments it is 0.51MeV, but since 0.5 and 0.51 are in 2% Sigma Error we can drop the 0.51 and use 0.5.

So we have the monopole at 0.5MeV and the proton at 840MeV with a muon inside of 105MeV totaling 945MeV within sigma error of 938MeV from experiments or the neutron at 940MeV, better yet in sigma error.

So I was not going to write a whole new book, unless I could connect and tie into physics and that is exactly what ended up.

We know the Pair Production requires a gamma ray of 1MeV to split in two particles of 0.5MeV of positron and of monopole.

So, another Physics explanation is that electricity and the magnetic monopole are the summation of all fractions of the EM spectrum of Waves. And, were the summation of all energies in a specific Grid is another value of the 5 prefix.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 12, 2022, 2:37:50 AM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 10, 2022, 9:35:45 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
More to Add on this book:

Yes, so I need not have to write a new book on the fallacy of Old Math's divergence and convergence of series. When you have fake numbers for math, and you have fake ideas like continuum, and like the concept of infinity, you are bound to run into crazy conclusions. Crazy conclusions like that of adding up tiny numbers between 0 and 1 will lead to infinity itself. As if you ever more cut a cherry pie into smaller portions and then think of adding up all the tiny fractions that you will end up with a cherry pie larger than what you started with and a cherry pie that stretches to infinity, all from tiny little pieces. Here the Old Math mathematicians went off the cliff of crazy math in a big glorious manner.

In New Math, the only true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers, and these are discrete numbers meaning empty space in between one number and the next number. The smallest Decimal Grid System is the 10 Grid and it has exactly ten decimal fractions of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, .. 0.9, 1.0 if we count 1 as a fraction and never count 0 as a decimal fraction.

So for small fraction numbers in 10 Grid we have just 10 numbers to add and that sum is 1.45.

And 1.45 is not a 10 Grid number but a 100 Grid Number. But, 1.45 is in between 1.4 and 1.5.

So here we define Convergence and Divergence for 10 Decimal Grid as being convergence when the sum is a number that exists in 10 Grid or is a number between x and x+0.1 in 10 Decimal Grid where both x and x+0.1 are in 10 Grid.. We define Divergence as the sum goes beyond the largest number in the Grid system which is 10 and we view 10 as being infinity borderline so if we add up all the numbers of whole numbers they lie beyond 10 and so that sequence diverges. Or adding up all the numbers from 1.0 to 2.0 diverges to infinity in 10 Grid for it is larger than 10. Notice we do not have to bother with beyond microinfinity in 10 Grid for that is 0.1, for in series we add and the smallest we can add is 0.1+0.1.

You see Old Math never defined what the hell does the concept infinity mean? And in New Math, infinity means a borderline between finite numbers and infinite numbers. Using the Huygens tractrix we nail down, or locate this borderline as being 1*10^604 and for microinfinity the inverse 1*10^-604. Any number larger than 1*10^604 or smaller than 1*10^-604 are infinite numbers and not belonging to mathematics. Yes, I mean what I say, we have departed mathematics when we deal with infinite numbers in the 10^604 Grid. Our conclusions of mathematics are no longer deduction conclusions but probability conclusions. For it is fair to say that mathematics as a science starts to breakdown in the infinite numbers.

So we play a pretend game with 10 Grid that 0.1 is microinfinity and 10 is macroinfinity.

Now we see in every Grid system from 10 to 10^604 that adding up the Fractions in that system all Converge.

And this makes absolute commonsense in Math and Physics for we want not to break Conservation laws in physics the conservation laws of energy which our cherry pie cut into smaller and smaller fractions then adding up all these small fractions, ends up being, in Old Math, larger than infinity.

Now we proven that the sum of all fractions in 10 Grid converges, and by math induction prove that all Decimal Grid Systems converge of their fractions.

The TAKEAWAY--

The takeaway in all of this is that Old Math had several opportunities to see it was all flawed and needed massive overhaul. Old Math could not do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, should have alerted everyone in Old Math starting with Newton and Leibniz that Old Math was terribly flawed. Old Math could not understand that in Physics it is all discrete and no continuum-- yet the idiots of Old Math ignored quantum mechanics and ventured into more and more absurdities of Cauchy limit analysis in calculus, of Cantor infinities, of continuum hypothesis with Cohen.

Add another to that list of absurdities is the Oresme divergence of fractions, which I just discussed and informally proven Oresme wrong.

No, AP needs not have to write a whole new book on the Oresme divergence of fractions in a sequence, for AP just needs to include this post in his Mathopedia causing there to be 77 huge mistakes and errors and flaws of Old Math.

Thanks, I seemed to have forgotten that the Harmonic series does in fact Converge and needs be added to Mathopedia.
>
> Oresme obviously had not the true numbers of mathematics of Decimal Grid Numbers, instead he had the mindless ignorant Reals with its poppycock continuum, the worst hidden assumption in centuries of mathematics.
>
> When you realize the true numbers of mathematic are Discrete and decimal Grid Numbers then the harmonic series always converges.
>
> The mindless divergence of Harmonic series is a math proof of how banal kooks can become even more banal, and enjoy it.
>
> This would be Mathopedia's 77th fake math.
>
> MATHOPEDIA-- List of 76 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Preface:
> A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.
>
> The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.
>
> The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.
>
> Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.
>
> 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 questions 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, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
>
> ----------------------------
> Table of Contents
> ----------------------------
>
> 1) Introduction
>
> 2) List of 76 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Math.
>
> 3) Appendix
>
> ---------
> Text
> ---------
>
> 1) Introduction
>
>
> 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 partial form 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, erstwhile, we have no Calculus. So calculus is the consistency maker for the rest of all of mathematics.
>
>
>
> 2) List of 76 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Math.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 7) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.
>
> 8) Limit analysis was an insane fakery in Old Math, concocted because Old Math needed the excuse of some proof, so they invented the monster con-artist trick that a limit analysis would divert the fact it is no proof at all, but a Non Sequitur argument. Limit analysis is juju totem witchcraft dance around a desire to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Just as idiotic as dancing around a sick person of a virus is going to cure the person..
>
> 9) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.
>
> 10) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.
>
> 11) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 11, 2022, 1:50:22 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I caught myself in a huge mistake below. Only now did I catch myself for the sum of 0.1+0.2, +.. ,+ 0.9 +1. is not the paltry 1.45 but is the 5.5. I caught that mistake just now in figuring out the fraction summation in 100 Grid and remembering how Gauss computed that as 101 x 50 would be 50.50 which if true, and I made no further mistake would suggest that 1000 Grid would be coming further down in value than is 50.50.

AP's 169th science book MATHEMATICS CONSISTENCY

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Jan 22, 2022, 4:06:10 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I have not spent enough time on Function Inverses as I should have spent. And now is the time to fill in that gap.

Because just a few days ago we come into 3D Calculus with the concept of acceleration as being dy/(dx^2) while angular momentum is (dy^2)/dx.

One easily recognizes the inverse relationship.

Now since true math is all 1st Quadrant only and only positive Decimal Grid Numbers and only Polynomials as functions we must consider the function of Y = x compared to the function Y = 10 -x in the 10 Grid.

And consider if Y= x is the inverse of Y = 10-x.

In fact if we drew in the 10 Grid as a square then the functions graphed simultaneously should look like this X inside that square.

What I am probing here, yes probing is whether Angular Momentum (dy^2)/dx is the inverse of dy/(dx^2).

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Jan 22, 2022, 5:58:02 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
What AP is attempting to do here is something that Old Math failed to even consider, a standardized method of telling the inverse of a given function.

In New Math we can do this, and make it ultra easy. Because the only true functions in existence are the Polynomial functions, and as shown in my earlier post of today, where I take Y= x then its inverse is a subtraction of Y = 10 -x when in 10 Grid or be Y = 100-x in 100 Grid, etc.

So in New Math where all functions are polynomials and if not a polynomial, you have to take time away and convert via Lagrange transformation, convert your silly dumb function into a true polynomial function over a specific interval. And all functions inhabit only the 1st Quadrant of mathematics, the other 3 were mental insane asylum clinic quadrants.

So here we see a way of finding the inverse of any given function in 2D. We simply subtract from the Grid largest number. So what is the inverse of Y = x^2 in 10 Grid? It would be Y = 10 - x^2 in 1st Quadrant Only as all functions are polynomials in first quadrant only.

Now the reason I am exploring and digging into inverses is because of 3rd Dimension Calculus where we have Angular Momentum as (dy^2)/dx and we have acceleration as dy/(dx^2). This is my primary goal is to resolve those two as inverse relationships.

And already we can sort of see glimmers of true reality in that a dy^2 moving through a dx is the Ampere law of magnetic field around a wire carrying electricity. While the dx^2 in acceleration is the electric field in Faraday law of a electric current produced by thrusting bar magnet.

We certainly know the Ampere law is the inverse of Faraday law and both are in 3rd dimension and here I am making the case of Calculus in 3rd Dimension has the inverses of dy/(dx^2) relative to (dy^2)/dx.

This would be a great clarification in both math and physics where up to now, it was thought that angular momentum and acceleration were totally unrelated.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
2:41 PM (3 minutes ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, AP is going to write his 169th book of science as

Mathematics Consistency// Logic science

by Archimedes Plutonium

The 169th book of Science for AP// Math Consistency tests (1) geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (2) Oresme screw-up of Harmonic series (3) polynomials as only valid functions (4) screw-up of dimensions

And I shall write into that book what happens when mathematics professors have no logical brains to write Calculus textbooks.

A real mathematician that writes calculus textbooks is expected to define what the hell are the numbers he is going to use throughout the text to teach Calculus. But no Gilbert Strang, Calculus, 1991, is such a scatterbrain, that he never defines-- what the hell are your numbers Gilbert? And has the audacity to define Complex numbers on page 360 but never what the hell are his original numbers.

Taking a look at the very first page of Strang's Calculus, 1991, and I hope any new editions were denied so as to save our young students the agony of using a scatterbrained calculus book. By scatterbrain, I mean no logical coherence, much of inconsistency and even outright contradictions.

And looking at the very first page is revealing as to whether any math textbook is worthy of using in education.

And here, Strang on the very first page reveals not his scatterbrain mind in math, but reveals something far worse, in he never understood Calculus in the first place. For he ends the first page with the stark mistake of saying "The central question of calculus is the relation between v and f."

No, Strang. The central question of calculus involves the two new operators of integral and derivative, new operators to include with the four known operators of add, subtract, multiply and divide, for integral and derivative are new operators and the question about integral and derivative is the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. So the purpose of Calculus is to elaborate and clarify these two new operators of integral and derivative and to connect them in that Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, with a geometry proof of FTC.

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.

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