Dr Tao needs to publish in UCLA student newspaper that he now sees the light of day that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse and stop his propaganda bullshit math that Dr. Tao pollutes the minds of young students with. Why, any High School student can drop a Kerr lid (circle) into a scrolled up paper cone and eye witness the crescent moon shape added onto the circle to form a OVAL, never the ellipse, yet the bozo the clown of math Terry Tao still polluting the minds of students.

Even the moron Kibo Parry Moron with his 938 is 12% short of 945 recognizes the mindless failure of math that is Dr. Terence Tao.

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 7:25:44 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>of Math and of Physics "spamtard"
>"psychoceramic"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 1:13:27 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Here you are!
> Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
> sections are ellipses.
>
> Some preliminaries:
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- < xh
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ < x0
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' < x h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x 0 > '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon..
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Dr. Andrew Wiles University Oxford needs to apologize in the Oxford student newspaper for aiding and abetting fake math taught at Oxford -- his ellipse from conic sections, his Harmonic series diverges, his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction in the error filled Boole logic, but worst of all Wiles seems to be ignorant of the fact that Calculus is geometry and thus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Andrew Wiles, publish today so no more students are brainwashed with your error filled mathematics.

5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 




y
| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

On 2/5/2022 2:35 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Dr Tao needs to publish in UCLA student newspaper that he now sees the light of day that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse

You meant the darkness of evil, correct? Dr. Tao would never do
something so incredibly stupid, why would he post a lie in a student
newspaper? Certainly the King of Math, Dr. Tao, understands the many
proofs that the ellipse is a conic section. Even the ancient Greeks knew
that!

> and stop his propaganda bullshit math that Dr. Tao pollutes the minds of young students with.
> yet the bozo the clown of math Terry Tao still polluting the minds of students.

Don't insult your superiors like that! Show some respect for your betters!

> Why, any High School student can drop a Kerr lid (circle) into a scrolled up paper cone and eye witness the crescent moon shape added onto the circle to form a OVAL, never the ellipse,

So your paper cone isn't really conical! Any fool knows a circle (Kerr
lid) fits perfectly in a cone, perpendicular to the axis, while
StupidPlutonium's "cone" isn't good enough to work! Not surprising, a
paper "cone" isn't going to hold its shape very well!

Hey Spirit of Uncle Al! What do you think about how StupidPlutonium
tries to make a flimsy cone of paper which can't even hold its shape,
yet when the can lid doesn't fit right, he thinks he "proved" something!
How dumb and stoopid is that?

"I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean rock-hard
stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface of Venus
under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid vapor
dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid
that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different
sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid.
Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild
radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense and massive that no
intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Archie-Poo emits more
stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise emits stupid/year.
Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can be this stupid.
Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial fragment from the
original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of stupid so uncontaminated
by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that define
maximally extrapolated hypergeometric n-dimensional backgroundless
stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo is Planck stupid, a quantum
foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid, a grand unified theory of
stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epitome of stupidity, the epiphany of stupid, the
apotheosis of stupidity. Archie-poo is stooopid."