John Stillwell and his Google Search hits of sugar coated glop for your failures of math, when Google Search needs Balanced Journalism with A COUNTERPOINT entry on your first page-- for example John your ellipse idiocy as conic section

Kibo and the rest of the world would like to see a Balanced Google Search of John Stillwell with a Counterpoint in his first page of hits-- one saying that Stillwell failed in conic sections.

Kibo is right to point out how jackarse insane John Stillwell is in his book Mathematics and Its History, 3rd edition page 29 where the imbecile John draws a ellipse inside a single cone. Say John were you asleep when they taught symmetry for a cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as oval, but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. Amazing Springer allows you to publish such rubbish that pollutes the mind.

Kibo who says 938 is 12% short of 945, tries to sketch Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles and Thomas Hales fake proof that ellipse is a slant cut in single cone.

Kibo Parry M showing signs of slowing down on his stalking
On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 2:18:02 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"one marble illogical brain"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
>
> However, there are many proofs that the slant cut is an ellipse. Such as
> this one:
>
>
> I'll start with the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2, and rotate it through an angle
> 'theta' around the 'y' axis, and consider the intersection of that rotated
> cone with the plane z = <constant>
>
> To simplify things, let c = cos(theta) and s = sin(theta). Then the
> rotation is defined by
>
> z --> cz + sx
> x --> -sz + cx
> y --> y
>
> So the equation of the rotated cone is
>
> (cz+sx)^2 = (-sz+cx)^2 + y^2
>
> and now let C = c^2-s^2 and S = 2sc (again, just to simplify the look
> of things)
>
> so we get
>
> Cz^2 = Cx^2 - 2Szx + y^2
>
> and letting 'z' equal the constant 'k' gives
>
> Ck^2 + k^2*S^2/C = C(x - k*S/C)^2 + y^2
>
> which is the equation of an ellipse if C > 0.

Kibo Parry M. is this Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet and American Mathematical Societies AMS fake proof of ellipse a conic???

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.

No wonder Hales had to run to computers to crank out his fake Kepler Packing. Hales is so dumb in math he cannot even prove Oval is the slant cut in single cone.

Thomas Hales, why does Google Search have sugar coated boutique shops for your failures of math, when Google Search needs Balanced Journalism with A COUNTERPOINT entry on your first page.

Kibo and Swiss Jan Burse complaining for 20 years that Thomas Hales, Dr. Andrew Wiles and Dr. Tao cannot tell apart a Oval from ellipse as proven by AP that slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse. Or that Dr. Tao is so ignorant of math, he never knew Calculus was geometry and hence required a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or the fact that Tao failed math is because he failed logic using Boole's 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction. Perhaps the reason he failed all of mathematics is because his brain still is chugging on 2 OR 1 = 3. See AP's proofs of all his claims in his Amazon Kindle science books-- 177 books to date.

Why does Google Search have sugar coated boutique shops for failures of science, physics, math, when they have an obligation of Balanced Journalism with A COUNTERPOINT entry on first page of Terence Tao.

Kibo Parry wanting BALANCED JOURNALISM in sci.physics on Sheldon Glashow. Like his own Google search page shows Kibo to be a sickfuck on the first page, but Kibo wants that fine-tuned for Jan Burse (Mostowski Collapse) is shown as a sickfuck on the first entry of his Google search.

For Google does not tell us that Sheldon Glashow is so crippled in physics that his mind cannot even entertain the question of which is the atom's true electron-- the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. See any one of AP's published TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS (Amazon Kindle).

Why does Google have sugar coated boutique shops for failures of science, physics, math, when they have an obligation of Balanced Journalism with A COUNTERPOINT entry on first page of Sheldon Glashow.

Like Judy Woodruff on PBS Newshour is Balanced Reporting.

Kibo likes to see that sugar coated idiots of science and math such as Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow are in scope of True Journalism, for Google searches are not boutique stores of sugar coated garbage but of Point and Counterpoint. Like Kibo's and Jan's Google search revealing the "little farting men that they really are", or as James McGinn recently said in his spamming threads of weather in sci.physics-- Revealing the Asshole Hiding Within.

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney, not a comic, not a scientist, not a engineer but a evil stalker shithead that wants to torture more South Korean Moon Bears
#1-1, 148th published book Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series,
1:12 AM

_Google Search for a Balanced report_ of "Kibo Parry" , 28 year nonstop stalker with incurable stalker disease, who fails at all math with his inability to even do a proper correct percentage.
PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 133 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor by
1:08 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz sci.physics

Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games
#1-1, 148th published book Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series,
1:42 AM

6--Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games
#1-1, 148th published book Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series,
1:41 AM

Google, great job on Harvard Dr. Hau, lousy pitiful job on Thomas Hales, Sheldon Glashow as some propaganda pitch as if Search engines have become science-propaganda-kiosks, instead of Balanced Journalism with Counterpoint. Is Google trying to
PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 133 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor by
1:06 AM

Thanks Google for Balanced Search Hits on Harvard's Dr. Hau
https://groups.google.com › sci.physics
https://groups.google.com › sci.physics

The ... ... Lene Vestergaard Hau is a Danish physicist who is currently the Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and of Applied ... ... In 1999, after years of ...

Google, great job on Harvard Dr. Hau, lousy pitiful job on ...https://groups.google.com › sci.physics
https://groups.google.com › sci.physics
Jun 26, 2021 — Lene Vestergaard Hau is the Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and of Applied Physics and is also on the faculty of the Harvard Biophysics ...

Kibo Parry M. respectfully requests Balanced Google Search Journalism on Sheldon Glashow, instead of the rosy sugary glop when Sheldon is a mindless idiot in physics and that Counterpoint on his 1st page

Kibo Parry wanting balanced journalism in sci.physics. Like his own Google search page shows Kibo to be a sickfuck on the first page, but Kibo wants that fine-tuned for Jan Burse (Mostowski Collapse) is shown as a sickfuck on the first entry of his Google search.

Kibo likes to see that sugar coated idiots of science and math such as Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow are in scope with True Journalism, for Google searches are not boutique stores of sugar coated garbage but of Point and Counterpoint. Like Kibo's and Jan's Google search revealing the "little farting men that they really are", or as James McGinn recently said in his thread of weather in sci.physics-- Revealing the Asshole Hiding Within.

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney, not a comic, not a scientist, not a engineer but a evil stalker shithead that wants to torture more South Korean Moon Bears
#1-1, 148th published book Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series,
1:12 AM

Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles,Thomas Hales, Google Search just sugar coated glop for math failures, Google Search never a COUNTERPOINT on first page for these math failures. Kibo Parry has a Counterpoint on his first page of Google Search so does the stalker Jan Burse. AP has several counterpoints on his first page. So why should Math failures Tao, Wiles, Hales, Stillwell, Ribet, Pipher, Gerald Edgar, have nothing but sugar glop-- oh look at boy wonderful and never any Counterpoint such as the fact these are math idiots with their Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, so mixed up in mind that they think slant cut in single cone is ellipse when in truth it is Oval, and worst of all, all these fools of math know calculus is geometry, yet they never can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can do is the mind-rot limit analysis. Yet Google Search honors them with millions of hits of worthless sugary flowery glop.

Kibo and Swiss Jan Burse complaining for 20 years that Thomas Hales, Dr. Andrew Wiles and Dr. Tao cannot tell apart a Oval from ellipse as proven by AP that slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse. Or that Dr. Tao is so ignorant of math, he never knew Calculus was geometry and hence required a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or the fact that Tao failed math is because he failed logic using Boole's 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction. Perhaps the reason he failed all of mathematics is because his brain still is chugging on 2 OR 1 = 3. See AP's proofs of all his claims in his Amazon Kindle science books-- 177 books to date.

Why does Google Search have sugar coated boutique shops for failures of science, physics, math, when they have an obligation of Balanced Journalism with A COUNTERPOINT entry on first page of Terence Tao.

No wonder Tao, Wiles, Hales, Pipher, Ribet, Stillwell, think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse with monsterously ugly so called proofs as below. When AP simply proves it in his published book-- Ellipse has two axes of symmetry while cone & oval have one axis of symmetry along with AP's Euclidean geometry proof in his Amazon Kindle book.

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 2:18:02 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"one marble illogical brain"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
>
> However, there are many proofs that the slant cut is an ellipse. Such as
> this one:
>
>
> I'll start with the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2, and rotate it through an angle
> 'theta' around the 'y' axis, and consider the intersection of that rotated
> cone with the plane z = <constant>
>
> To simplify things, let c = cos(theta) and s = sin(theta). Then the
> rotation is defined by
>
> z --> cz + sx
> x --> -sz + cx
> y --> y
>
> So the equation of the rotated cone is
>
> (cz+sx)^2 = (-sz+cx)^2 + y^2
>
> and now let C = c^2-s^2 and S = 2sc (again, just to simplify the look
> of things)
>
> so we get
>
> Cz^2 = Cx^2 - 2Szx + y^2
>
> and letting 'z' equal the constant 'k' gives
>
> Ck^2 + k^2*S^2/C = C(x - k*S/C)^2 + y^2
>
> which is the equation of an ellipse if C > 0.

No wonder Tao, Wiles, Hales, Pipher, Ribet, Stillwell, think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse with monsterously ugly so called proofs as below. When AP simply proves it in his published book-- Ellipse has two axes of symmetry while cone & oval have one axis of symmetry along with AP's Euclidean geometry proof in his Amazon Kindle book.

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

We expect Tao, Wiles, Hales, Pipher, Ribet, Stillwell, to do a correct percentage of how much 938 is short of 945, but not Kibo Parry of Rensselaer-- perhaps the only engineer in the world that cannot do a percentage problem.

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.

Kibo Parry wanting BALANCED JOURNALISM in sci.physics on Sheldon Glashow. Like his own Google search page shows Kibo to be a sickfuck on the first page, but Kibo wants that fine-tuned for Jan Burse (Mostowski Collapse) is shown as a sickfuck on the first entry of his Google search.

For Google does not tell us that Sheldon Glashow is so crippled in physics that his mind cannot even entertain the question of which is the atom's true electron-- the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. See any one of AP's published TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS (Amazon Kindle).

Why does Google have sugar coated boutique shops for failures of science, physics, math, when they have an obligation of Balanced Journalism with A COUNTERPOINT entry on first page of Sheldon Glashow.

Like Judy Woodruff on PBS Newshour is Balanced Reporting.

Kibo likes to see that sugar coated idiots of science and math such as Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow are in scope of True Journalism, for Google searches are not boutique stores of sugar coated garbage but of Point and Counterpoint. Like Kibo's and Jan's Google search revealing the "little farting men that they really are", or as James McGinn recently said in his spamming threads of weather in sci.physics-- Revealing the Asshole Hiding Within.

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney, not a comic, not a scientist, not a engineer but a evil stalker shithead that wants to torture more South Korean Moon Bears
#1-1, 148th published book Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series,
1:12 AM

_Google Search for a Balanced report_ of "Kibo Parry" , 28 year nonstop stalker with incurable stalker disease, who fails at all math with his inability to even do a proper correct percentage.
PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 133 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor by
1:08 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz sci.physics

Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games
#1-1, 148th published book Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series,
1:42 AM

6--Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games
#1-1, 148th published book Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series,
1:41 AM

Google, great job on Harvard Dr. Hau, lousy pitiful job on Thomas Hales, Sheldon Glashow as some propaganda pitch as if Search engines have become science-propaganda-kiosks, instead of Balanced Journalism with Counterpoint. Is Google trying to
PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 133 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor by
1:06 AM

Thanks Google for Balanced Search Hits on Harvard's Dr. Hau
https://groups.google.com › sci.physics
https://groups.google.com › sci.physics

The ... ... Lene Vestergaard Hau is a Danish physicist who is currently the Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and of Applied ... ... In 1999, after years of ...

Google, great job on Harvard Dr. Hau, lousy pitiful job on ...https://groups.google.com › sci.physics
https://groups.google.com › sci.physics
Jun 26, 2021 — Lene Vestergaard Hau is the Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and of Applied Physics and is also on the faculty of the Harvard Biophysics ...

Kibo Parry M. respectfully requests Balanced Google Search Journalism on Sheldon Glashow, instead of the rosy sugary glop when Sheldon is a mindless idiot in physics and that Counterpoint on his 1st page

Kibo Parry wanting balanced journalism in sci.physics. Like his own Google search page shows Kibo to be a sickfuck on the first page, but Kibo wants that fine-tuned for Jan Burse (Mostowski Collapse) is shown as a sickfuck on the first entry of his Google search.

Kibo likes to see that sugar coated idiots of science and math such as Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow are in scope with True Journalism, for Google searches are not boutique stores of sugar coated garbage but of Point and Counterpoint. Like Kibo's and Jan's Google search revealing the "little farting men that they really are", or as James McGinn recently said in his thread of weather in sci.physics-- Revealing the Asshole Hiding Within.

Why Terence Tao needs to depart math as a sickfuck failure-- for one could engrave inside his brain that a cone has 1 axis of symmetry, a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, and a oval has 1 axis of symmetry and yet the sickfuck failure Tao will step back into the classroom and continue to teach ellipse is a conic section.

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?

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)