Betsie Jonck,Jesse Alt,Margaret Archibald, Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

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.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.

Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-2, 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?

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)

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.

Jesse Alt,Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald, Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
>
2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
2> 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.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
> Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
>
> Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
>
> In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
>
> Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
> #11-2, 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?
>
> 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)
>
>
> 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 
> 

>
>
> Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> Physics dept
> Joao Rodrigues
> Somnath Bhattacharyya
> John Carter
> Andrew Chen
> Darell Comins
> Robert De Mello Koch
> Arthur Every
> Andrew Forbes
> Kelvin Goldstein
> Vishnu Jejjala
> Robert Joubert
> Jonathan Keartland
> Nukri Komin
> Bruce Mellado
> Deena Naidoo
> Mervin Naidoo
> Alex Quandt
> Elias Sideras-Haddad
> Martin Ntwaeaborwa
>
>
> Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
>
> Dr. D. Brijlall
> Dr. D Day
> Dr. DB Lortan
> Dr. A Maharaj
> Dr. S Moyo
> Dr. S Rajah
> Dr. D Singh
>
> University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> Betsie Jonck
> Jesse Alt
> Margaret Archibald
> Charlotte Brennan
> Sonja Currie
> Alexander Davison
> Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> Marie Grobbelaar
> Yorick Hardy
> Meira Hockman
> Sameerah Jamal
> Abdul Kara
> Arnold Knopfmacher
> Wen Chi Kou
> Christopher Kriel
> Rugare Kwashira
> Florian Luca
> Ronnie Maartens
> Carminda Mennen
> Manfred Moller
> Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> Augustine Munagi
> Loyiso Nongxa
> Bruce Watson
> Yevhen Zelenyuk
>
>
> 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.
2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium

Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> >
> 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> 2> 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> >
> > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> >
> > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> >
> > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> > #11-2, 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?
> >
> > 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)
> >
> >
> > 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 
> > 

> >
> >
> > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > Physics dept
> > Joao Rodrigues
> > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > John Carter
> > Andrew Chen
> > Darell Comins
> > Robert De Mello Koch
> > Arthur Every
> > Andrew Forbes
> > Kelvin Goldstein
> > Vishnu Jejjala
> > Robert Joubert
> > Jonathan Keartland
> > Nukri Komin
> > Bruce Mellado
> > Deena Naidoo
> > Mervin Naidoo
> > Alex Quandt
> > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> >
> >
> > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> >
> > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > Dr. D Day
> > Dr. DB Lortan
> > Dr. A Maharaj
> > Dr. S Moyo
> > Dr. S Rajah
> > Dr. D Singh
> >
> > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > Betsie Jonck
> > Jesse Alt
> > Margaret Archibald
> > Charlotte Brennan
> > Sonja Currie
> > Alexander Davison
> > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > Marie Grobbelaar
> > Yorick Hardy
> > Meira Hockman
> > Sameerah Jamal
> > Abdul Kara
> > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > Wen Chi Kou
> > Christopher Kriel
> > Rugare Kwashira
> > Florian Luca
> > Ronnie Maartens
> > Carminda Mennen
> > Manfred Moller
> > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > Augustine Munagi
> > Loyiso Nongxa
> > Bruce Watson
> > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> >
> >
> > 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.
> 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium

2Jesse Alt,Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald, Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> >
> 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> 2> 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> >
> > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> >
> > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> >
> > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> > #11-2, 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?
> >
> > 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)
> >
> >
> > 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 
> > 

> >
> >
> > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > Physics dept
> > Joao Rodrigues
> > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > John Carter
> > Andrew Chen
> > Darell Comins
> > Robert De Mello Koch
> > Arthur Every
> > Andrew Forbes
> > Kelvin Goldstein
> > Vishnu Jejjala
> > Robert Joubert
> > Jonathan Keartland
> > Nukri Komin
> > Bruce Mellado
> > Deena Naidoo
> > Mervin Naidoo
> > Alex Quandt
> > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> >
> >
> > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> >
> > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > Dr. D Day
> > Dr. DB Lortan
> > Dr. A Maharaj
> > Dr. S Moyo
> > Dr. S Rajah
> > Dr. D Singh
> >
> > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > Betsie Jonck
> > Jesse Alt
> > Margaret Archibald
> > Charlotte Brennan
> > Sonja Currie
> > Alexander Davison
> > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > Marie Grobbelaar
> > Yorick Hardy
> > Meira Hockman
> > Sameerah Jamal
> > Abdul Kara
> > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > Wen Chi Kou
> > Christopher Kriel
> > Rugare Kwashira
> > Florian Luca
> > Ronnie Maartens
> > Carminda Mennen
> > Manfred Moller
> > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > Augustine Munagi
> > Loyiso Nongxa
> > Bruce Watson
> > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> >
> >
> > 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.
> 45> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium

Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

> >
> 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> 2> 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> >
> > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> >
> > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> >
> > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> > #11-2, 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?
> >
> > 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)
> >
> >
> > 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 
> > 

> >
> >
> > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > Physics dept
> > Joao Rodrigues
> > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > John Carter
> > Andrew Chen
> > Darell Comins
> > Robert De Mello Koch
> > Arthur Every
> > Andrew Forbes
> > Kelvin Goldstein
> > Vishnu Jejjala
> > Robert Joubert
> > Jonathan Keartland
> > Nukri Komin
> > Bruce Mellado
> > Deena Naidoo
> > Mervin Naidoo
> > Alex Quandt
> > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> >
> >
> > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> >
> > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > Dr. D Day
> > Dr. DB Lortan
> > Dr. A Maharaj
> > Dr. S Moyo
> > Dr. S Rajah
> > Dr. D Singh
> >
> > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > Betsie Jonck
> > Jesse Alt
> > Margaret Archibald
> > Charlotte Brennan
> > Sonja Currie
> > Alexander Davison
> > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > Marie Grobbelaar
> > Yorick Hardy
> > Meira Hockman
> > Sameerah Jamal
> > Abdul Kara
> > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > Wen Chi Kou
> > Christopher Kriel
> > Rugare Kwashira
> > Florian Luca
> > Ronnie Maartens
> > Carminda Mennen
> > Manfred Moller
> > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > Augustine Munagi
> > Loyiso Nongxa
> > Bruce Watson
> > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> >
> >
> > 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.
> 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium

Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.


> >
> 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> 2> 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> >
> > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> >
> > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> >
> > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> > #11-2, 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?
> >
> > 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)
> >
> >
> > 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 
> > 

> >
> >
> > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > Physics dept
> > Joao Rodrigues
> > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > John Carter
> > Andrew Chen
> > Darell Comins
> > Robert De Mello Koch
> > Arthur Every
> > Andrew Forbes
> > Kelvin Goldstein
> > Vishnu Jejjala
> > Robert Joubert
> > Jonathan Keartland
> > Nukri Komin
> > Bruce Mellado
> > Deena Naidoo
> > Mervin Naidoo
> > Alex Quandt
> > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> >
> >
> > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> >
> > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > Dr. D Day
> > Dr. DB Lortan
> > Dr. A Maharaj
> > Dr. S Moyo
> > Dr. S Rajah
> > Dr. D Singh
> >
> > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > Betsie Jonck
> > Jesse Alt
> > Margaret Archibald
> > Charlotte Brennan
> > Sonja Currie
> > Alexander Davison
> > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > Marie Grobbelaar
> > Yorick Hardy
> > Meira Hockman
> > Sameerah Jamal
> > Abdul Kara
> > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > Wen Chi Kou
> > Christopher Kriel
> > Rugare Kwashira
> > Florian Luca
> > Ronnie Maartens
> > Carminda Mennen
> > Manfred Moller
> > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > Augustine Munagi
> > Loyiso Nongxa
> > Bruce Watson
> > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> >
> >
> > 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.
> 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium

2-Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> 
> 
> > >
> > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > 2> 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.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > •
> > > •
> > >
> > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > >
> > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > >
> > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > >
> > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > > #11-2, 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?
> > >
> > > 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)
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 
> > > 

> > >
> > >
> > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > Physics dept
> > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > John Carter
> > > Andrew Chen
> > > Darell Comins
> > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > Arthur Every
> > > Andrew Forbes
> > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > Robert Joubert
> > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > Nukri Komin
> > > Bruce Mellado
> > > Deena Naidoo
> > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > Alex Quandt
> > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > >
> > >
> > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > >
> > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > Dr. D Day
> > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > Dr. D Singh
> > >
> > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > Betsie Jonck
> > > Jesse Alt
> > > Margaret Archibald
> > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > Sonja Currie
> > > Alexander Davison
> > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > Yorick Hardy
> > > Meira Hockman
> > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > Abdul Kara
> > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > Christopher Kriel
> > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > Florian Luca
> > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > Carminda Mennen
> > > Manfred Moller
> > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > Augustine Munagi
> > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > Bruce Watson
> > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > Archimedes Plutonium

3-Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> > 
> > 
> > > >
3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > 2> 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.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > •
> > > > •
> > > >
3 > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > > >
3> > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > > >
> > > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > >
> > > > #11-2, 11th published book
> > > >
3 > 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:
3 > 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)
> > > >
> > > >
3 > 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 
> > > > 

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > Physics dept
> > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > John Carter
> > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > Darell Comins
> > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > Arthur Every
> > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > >
> > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > >
> > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > Florian Luca
> > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
3> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium

4-Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > >
4> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > 2> 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > •
> > > > > •
> > > > >
> 3 > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > > > >
> 3> > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > > > >
> > > > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > >
> > > > > #11-2, 11th published book
> > > > >
4> 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:
> 3 > 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)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> 3 > 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 
> > > > > 

> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > John Carter
> > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > >
> > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
4> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

2-Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, Jesse Alt,Charlotte Brennan,Sonja Currie why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank John Gabriel needs medication, not a Internet account.
> 
> 
> > >
> > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > 2> 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.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > •
> > > •
> > >
> > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > >
> > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > >
> > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > >
> > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > > #11-2, 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?
> > >
> > > 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)
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 
> > > 

> > >
> > >
> > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > Physics dept
> > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > John Carter
> > > Andrew Chen
> > > Darell Comins
> > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > Arthur Every
> > > Andrew Forbes
> > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > Robert Joubert
> > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > Nukri Komin
> > > Bruce Mellado
> > > Deena Naidoo
> > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > Alex Quandt
> > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > >
> > >
> > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > >
> > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > Dr. D Day
> > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > Dr. D Singh
> > >
> > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > Betsie Jonck
> > > Jesse Alt
> > > Margaret Archibald
> > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > Sonja Currie
> > > Alexander Davison
> > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > Yorick Hardy
> > > Meira Hockman
> > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > Abdul Kara
> > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > Christopher Kriel
> > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > Florian Luca
> > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > Carminda Mennen
> > > Manfred Moller
> > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > Augustine Munagi
> > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > Bruce Watson
> > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
6> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > Archimedes Plutonium

3-Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, Jesse Alt,Charlotte Brennan,Sonja Currie why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank John Gabriel needs medication, not a Internet account.
> > 
> > 
> > > >
> > > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > 2> 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.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > •
> > > > •
> > > >
> > > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > > >
> > > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > > >
> > > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > >
> > > > #11-2, 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?
> > > >
> > > > 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)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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 
> > > > 

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > Physics dept
> > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > John Carter
> > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > Darell Comins
> > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > Arthur Every
> > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > >
> > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > >
> > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > Florian Luca
> > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> 6> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium

3-Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, Jesse Alt,Charlotte Brennan,Sonja Currie why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank John Gabriel needs medication, not a Internet account.
> > 
> > 
> > > >
3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
3> 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.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > •
> > > > •
> > > >
> > > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > > >
3 > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > > >
> > > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > >
> > > > #11-2, 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?
> > > >
> > > > 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)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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 
> > > > 

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > Physics dept
> > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > John Carter
> > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > Darell Comins
> > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > Arthur Every
> > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > >
> > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > >
> > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > Florian Luca
> > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
3> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium

Witwatersrand,Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> 
> 
> > >
> > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > 2> 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.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > •
> > > •
> > >
> > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > >
> > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > >
> > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > >
> > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > > #11-2, 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?
> > >
> > > 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)
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 
> > > 

> > >
> > >
> > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > Physics dept
> > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > John Carter
> > > Andrew Chen
> > > Darell Comins
> > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > Arthur Every
> > > Andrew Forbes
> > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > Robert Joubert
> > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > Nukri Komin
> > > Bruce Mellado
> > > Deena Naidoo
> > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > Alex Quandt
> > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > >
> > >
> > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > >
> > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > Dr. D Day
> > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > Dr. D Singh
> > >
> > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > Betsie Jonck
> > > Jesse Alt
> > > Margaret Archibald
> > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > Sonja Currie
> > > Alexander Davison
> > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > Yorick Hardy
> > > Meira Hockman
> > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > Abdul Kara
> > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > Christopher Kriel
> > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > Florian Luca
> > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > Carminda Mennen
> > > Manfred Moller
> > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > Augustine Munagi
> > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > Bruce Watson
> > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > Archimedes Plutonium

Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand,Betsie Jonck,Charlotte Brennan,Sonja Currie why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

Frenchman Lacassagne 1885: "Every society has the criminals it deserves"

AP 2021: "Every University is _responsible_ for the filthy stalker or spammer who attended that school and is now a insane nonstop stalker or spammer on Usenet". Most college professors are new to the age of internet and the responsibilities have not seeped into them as yet, that if they have a mindless spammer in their community, it is their responsibility to guide and direct that misplaced soul to a rightful venue to unleash his/her mind.

AP 1990s: The Internet is new form of schooling with its openness, its publicity, and its international reach that College degrees in science can be passed out but also be made null & void if the beholder becomes an outrageous stalker & spammer of science on the Internet.

> > > >
3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
3> 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.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > •
> > > > •
> > > >
> > > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > > >
> > > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > > >
> > > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > >
> > > > #11-2, 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?
> > > >
> > > > 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)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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 
> > > > 

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > Physics dept
> > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > John Carter
> > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > Darell Comins
> > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > Arthur Every
> > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > >
> > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > >
> > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > Florian Luca
> > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium

Betsie JonckMargaret Archibald,Witwatersrand,Charlotte Brennan,Sonja Currie why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

>
>
> Frenchman Lacassagne 1885: "Every society has the criminals it deserves"
>
> AP 2021: "Every University is _responsible_ for the filthy stalker or spammer who attended that school and is now a insane nonstop stalker or spammer on Usenet". Most college professors are new to the age of internet and the responsibilities have not seeped into them as yet, that if they have a mindless spammer in their community, it is their responsibility to guide and direct that misplaced soul to a rightful venue to unleash his/her mind.
>
> AP 1990s: The Internet is new form of schooling with its openness, its publicity, and its international reach that College degrees in science can be passed out but also be made null & void if the beholder becomes an outrageous stalker & spammer of science on the Internet.
>
> > > > >
> 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> 3> 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.
> 
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > •
> > > > > •
> > > > >
> > > > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > > > >
> > > > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > > > >
> > > > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > >
> > > > > #11-2, 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?
> > > > >
> > > > > 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)
> > > > >
> > > > >
67 > > 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 
> > > > > 

> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > John Carter
> > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > >
> > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
887> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

Charlotte Brennan,Betsie Jonck,Witwatersrand,Margaret Archibald,Sonja Currie why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> 
> >
> >
> > Frenchman Lacassagne 1885: "Every society has the criminals it deserves"
> >
> > AP 2021: "Every University is _responsible_ for the filthy stalker or spammer who attended that school and is now a insane nonstop stalker or spammer on Usenet". Most college professors are new to the age of internet and the responsibilities have not seeped into them as yet, that if they have a mindless spammer in their community, it is their responsibility to guide and direct that misplaced soul to a rightful venue to unleash his/her mind.
> >
> > AP 1990s: The Internet is new form of schooling with its openness, its publicity, and its international reach that College degrees in science can be passed out but also be made null & void if the beholder becomes an outrageous stalker & spammer of science on the Internet.
> >
> > > > > >
> > 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > >
> > 3> 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.
> > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > •
> > > > > > •
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > > > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #11-2, 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?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> 67 > > 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 
> > > > > > 

> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > > John Carter
> > > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > > >
> > > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> 887> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

Sonja Currie,Witwatersrand,Charlotte Brennan,Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Sonja Currie why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > Frenchman Lacassagne 1885: "Every society has the criminals it deserves"
> > >
> > > AP 2021: "Every University is _responsible_ for the filthy stalker or spammer who attended that school and is now a insane nonstop stalker or spammer on Usenet". Most college professors are new to the age of internet and the responsibilities have not seeped into them as yet, that if they have a mindless spammer in their community, it is their responsibility to guide and direct that misplaced soul to a rightful venue to unleash his/her mind.
> > >
> > > AP 1990s: The Internet is new form of schooling with its openness, its publicity, and its international reach that College degrees in science can be passed out but also be made null & void if the beholder becomes an outrageous stalker & spammer of science on the Internet.
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > >
> > > 3> 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.
> > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > •
> > > > > > > •
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > > > > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #11-2, 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?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > 67 > > 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 
> > > > > > > 

> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > > > John Carter
> > > > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > 887> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

Sonja Currie, Witwatersrand,Margaret Archibald,Charlotte Brennan,Betsie Jonck, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

> 6> > > Frenchman Lacassagne 1885: "Every society has the criminals it deserves"
> > > >
> >7 > > AP 2021: "Every University is _responsible_ for the filthy stalker or filthy spammer who attended that school and is now a insane nonstop gigolo stalker or g-strap thong spammer on Usenet". Most college professors are new to the age of internet and the responsibilities have not seeped into them as yet, that if they have a mindless spammer in their community, it is their responsibility to guide and direct that misplaced soul to a rightful venue to unleash his/her mind.
> > > >
> >8 > > AP 1990s: The Internet is new form of schooling with its openness, its publicity, and its international reach that College degrees in science can be passed out but also be made null & void if the beholder becomes an outrageous stalker & spammer of science on the Internet.

> > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > 3> 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.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > •
> > > > > > > > •
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > > > > > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > > > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #11-2, 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?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > 67 > > 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 
> > > > > > > > 

> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > > > > John Carter
> > > > > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > 99> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
>98 > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

China's Xi thinks all 5977 Russian nuclear warheads are aimed at USA and none at Beijing, why McGinn???

John Gabriel, when Russia's Putin pushes the nuclear button, how many of the 5977 Russian missiles are aimed at Chinese cities??
Perhaps half of the 5977 will land on Chinese cities.
On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:34:59 AM UTC-5, Eram semper recta wrote:
> I am sorry for you. What a pitiful creature.

Sonja Currie, Witwatersrand,
Margaret Archibald,Charlotte Brennan,Betsie Jonck, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
>
> > 6> > > Frenchman Lacassagne 1885: "Every society has the criminals it deserves"
> > > > >
> > >7 > > AP 2021: "Every University is _responsible_ for the filthy stalker or filthy spammer who attended that school and is now a insane nonstop gigolo stalker or g-strap thong spammer on Usenet". Most college professors are new to the age of internet and the responsibilities have not seeped into them as yet, that if they have a mindless spammer in their community, it is their responsibility to guide and direct that misplaced soul to a rightful venue to unleash his/her mind.
> > > > >
> > >8 > > AP 1990s: The Internet is new form of schooling with its openness, its publicity, and its international reach that College degrees in science can be passed out but also be made null & void if the beholder becomes an outrageous stalker & spammer of science on the Internet.
> 
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > 3> 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.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > > > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > > > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > > > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > > > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > > •
> > > > > > > > > •
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > > > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > > > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > > > > > > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > > > > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > > > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > #11-2, 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?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > 67 > > 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 
> > > > > > > > > 

> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > > > > > John Carter
> > > > > > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > 99> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> >98 > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

China's Xi thinks all 5977 Russian nuclear warheads are aimed at USA and none at Beijing, why John Gabriel???
On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-6, James McGinn wrote:
>Pretending to Understand Storms

John Gabriel, when Russia's Putin pushes the nuclear button, how many of the 5977 Russian missiles are aimed at Chinese cities??
Perhaps half of the 5977 will land on Chinese cities.

Suspect the Pakistan-India missiles aimed at China for Uyghur genocide. That would be 165+160= 325 versus China's 350 missiles.


China's Xi thinks that when Putin pushes nuclear button that all 5977 Russian missiles will hit the West and none of those 5977 will land on Beijing. Putin is a lawyer, Xi is a chemical engineer, and is Xi a patsy when it comes to logistics?

But what if Xi realized that half of those 5977 are targeting China. Would Xi act and behave differently????
I need some kind of numbers data on number missiles present in the world today.

--- quoting BBC ---
Experts estimate around 1,500 Russian warheads are currently "deployed", meaning sited at missile and bomber bases or on submarines at sea.
How does this compare with other countries?
Nine countries have nuclear weapons: China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the US and the UK.

Russia 5,977

NATO 5,943, US 5,428, France 290, UK 225

China 350

Pakistan 165

India 160

Israel 90

North Korea 20

Source-- Federation of American Scientists

China's Xi thinks all 5977 Russian nuclear warheads are aimed at USA and none at Beijing, why John Gabriel???
On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-6, James McGinn wrote:
>Pretending to Understand Storms

John Gabriel, when Russia's Putin pushes the nuclear button, how many of the 5977 Russian missiles are aimed at Chinese cities??
Perhaps half of the 5977 will land on Chinese cities.

Suspect the Pakistan-India missiles aimed at China for Uyghur genocide. That would be 165+160= 325 versus China's 350 missiles.


China's Xi thinks that when Putin pushes nuclear button that all 5977 Russian missiles will hit the West and none of those 5977 will land on Beijing. Putin is a lawyer, Xi is a chemical engineer, and is Xi a patsy when it comes to logistics?

But what if Xi realized that half of those 5977 are targeting China. Would Xi act and behave differently????
I need some kind of numbers data on number missiles present in the world today.

--- quoting BBC ---
Experts estimate around 1,500 Russian warheads are currently "deployed", meaning sited at missile and bomber bases or on submarines at sea.
How does this compare with other countries?
Nine countries have nuclear weapons: China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the US and the UK.

Russia 5,977

NATO 5,943, US 5,428, France 290, UK 225

China 350

Pakistan 165

India 160

Israel 90

North Korea 20

Source-- Federation of American Scientists

Putin,China's Xi thinks all 5977 Russian nuclear warheads are aimed at USA and none at Beijing, why John Gabriel???
On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-6, James McGinn wrote:
>Pretending to Understand Storms

John Gabriel, when Russia's Putin pushes the nuclear button, how many of the 5977 Russian missiles are aimed at Chinese cities??
Perhaps half of the 5977 will land on Chinese cities.

Suspect the Pakistan-India missiles aimed at China for Uyghur genocide. That would be 165+160= 325 versus China's 350 missiles.


China's Xi thinks that when Putin pushes nuclear button that all 5977 Russian missiles will hit the West and none of those 5977 will land on Beijing. Putin is a lawyer, Xi is a chemical engineer, and is Xi a patsy when it comes to logistics?

But what if Xi realized that half of those 5977 are targeting China. Would Xi act and behave differently????
I need some kind of numbers data on number missiles present in the world today.

--- quoting BBC ---
Experts estimate around 1,500 Russian warheads are currently "deployed", meaning sited at missile and bomber bases or on submarines at sea.
How does this compare with other countries?
Nine countries have nuclear weapons: China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the US and the UK.

Russia 5,977

NATO 5,943, US 5,428, France 290, UK 225

China 350

Pakistan 165

India 160

Israel 90

North Korea 20

Source-- Federation of American Scientists

John Gabriel,Thorp, Young, Davis steal science, while Sawat Layuheem spams all day long

ahoy! John Gabriel,Dr. Thorp, Dr. Young, Dr. Chandler Davis steal away! Fail at science, even go so far as to steal science from AP.

H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Ask Dr. Thorp why in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it..

H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's.

Ask Dr. Thorp why in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.

Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.

But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.

And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.

Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?

Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.

8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).

Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.

I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.

Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views

Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.

I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".

Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.

22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.

Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages

Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)

Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.

Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.

From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76

A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.

There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.

Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.

I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.

My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.

The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.

My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.

Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.

Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.

Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.

The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.

We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.

And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.

Dr. Thorp, Dr. Young, Dr. Chandler Davis steal from others because they do not respect the Internet. They do not respect sci.physics, sci.math or the other newsgroups and look down upon Internet and feel they can just "freely steal, steal steal" all they want to steal and never have to cite their reference source-- the Internet.

2-_ Sonja Currie, Witwatersrand,Margaret Archibald,Charlotte Brennan,Betsie Jonck, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
>
> > 6> > > Frenchman Lacassagne 1885: "Every society has the criminals it deserves"
> > > > >
> > >7 > > AP 2021: "Every University is _responsible_ for the filthy stalker or filthy spammer who attended that school and is now a insane nonstop gigolo stalker or g-strap thong spammer on Usenet". Most college professors are new to the age of internet and the responsibilities have not seeped into them as yet, that if they have a mindless spammer in their community, it is their responsibility to guide and direct that misplaced soul to a rightful venue to unleash his/her mind.
> > > > >
> > >8 > > AP 1990s: The Internet is new form of schooling with its openness, its publicity, and its international reach that College degrees in science can be passed out but also be made null & void if the beholder becomes an outrageous stalker & spammer of science on the Internet.
> 
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > 3> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > 3> 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.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > > > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > > > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > > > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > > > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > > •
> > > > > > > > > •
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > > > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > > > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > > > > > > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > > > > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > > > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > #11-2, 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?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > 67 > > 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 
> > > > > > > > > 

> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > > > > > John Carter
> > > > > > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > 99> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> >98 > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

2- Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.
> 
> 
> > >
> > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > 2> 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.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > •
> > > •
> > >
> > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > >
> > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > >
> > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > >
> > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > > #11-2, 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?
> > >
> > > 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)
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 
> > > 

> > >
> > >
> > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > Physics dept
> > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > John Carter
> > > Andrew Chen
> > > Darell Comins
> > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > Arthur Every
> > > Andrew Forbes
> > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > Robert Joubert
> > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > Nukri Komin
> > > Bruce Mellado
> > > Deena Naidoo
> > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > Alex Quandt
> > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > >
> > >
> > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > >
> > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > Dr. D Day
> > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > Dr. D Singh
> > >
> > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > Betsie Jonck
> > > Jesse Alt
> > > Margaret Archibald
> > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > Sonja Currie
> > > Alexander Davison
> > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > Yorick Hardy
> > > Meira Hockman
> > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > Abdul Kara
> > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > Christopher Kriel
> > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > Florian Luca
> > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > Carminda Mennen
> > > Manfred Moller
> > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > Augustine Munagi
> > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > Bruce Watson
> > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > Archimedes Plutonium