Gerald Edgar needs to publish in Ohio State Univ student newspaper that he no longer will brainwash students with his mindless ellipse is a conic section. NSF Dr Panchanathan & Dr. Terence Tao need to apologize in their respective college student newspapers for teaching and aiding Fake Math-- ellipse a slant cut in single cone is fake-- for that is the Oval.
7k views

Dr. Panchanathan needs to publish in the Univ Ottawa student newspaper that he stopped teaching fake math of 938 is 12% short of 945, and that a slant cut in single cone is not a ellipse.

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.

They also need to apologize in that newspaper article for teaching their mindless Oresme Harmonic series diverges to infinity. For here is a simple proof that the Harmonic Series converges to a finite number.

1+1/2+1/3+ 1/4+..... + 1/n

1+1+1+1+ .....+ 1_n

As anyone with at least a one marble brain can see, the infinite series of adding 1 is always bigger than the Harmonic series sum. So, it always converges any series whose terms are smaller than 1.

Sobriquet & Dr. Terence Tao need to apologize in their respective college student newspapers for teaching and aiding Fake Math-- ellipse a slant cut in single cone is fake-- for that is the Oval.

Why Tao,Wiles,Pipher,Stillwell, Ribet,Hales failed geometry-- too stupid to even spot and recognize slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. Reason, they never understood Logic on how to think straight & clear.
5k views

When you ask Tao,Wiles,Pipher,Stillwell, Ribet,Hales how on Earth do they get a slant cut in single cone to be a ellipse which has 2 axes of symmetry yet the single cone has but 1 axis of symmetry. Ask them how they get a ellipse? The only conclusion one can draw is that Tao is a failure of logic, that Wiles is a failure of logic, that Pipher is a failure of logic, that Stillwell is a failure of logic, that Ribet is a failure of logic, and Hales another failure of logic. None can think straight nor can think clear. Yet all of them awarded in mathematics for their mindless mathematics.

Even a High School student has more intelligence in geometry than those 6 listed. For a High School student can demonstrate a single cone with 1 axis of symmetry and a Oval with 1 axis of symmetry match one another, but not the ellipse.

Why Tao,Wiles,Pipher,Stillwell, Ribet,Hales failed geometry-- too stupid to even spot and recognize slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. Reason, they never understood Logic on how to think straight & clear. And this also indicates to us that all the rest of the math offered by the listed 6 is nothing more than "garbage math, garbage thoughts."

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

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?

I guess Kibo Parry Moron is talking about the fact Dr. Edgar has not the honesty to admit he was wrong all his life long that the slant cut in single cone is a Oval never the Ellipse, which only goes to show many mathematicians go through life with touchy feely b.s. than with a logical rational brain.

On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 1:38:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"one marble illogical brain"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
>of Math and of Physics
>"CCP's lackey"
> What the hell is an "indirect" proof? Something you made up?
>
> Either you have a proof or you don't. And you don't.

Question Kibo Parry Moron, is the CCP some new math organization based at Ohio State Univ? Does CCP stand for Gerald Edgar Cannot-do-Calculus-Proof of fundamental theorem of calculus geometry proof?