MATHOPEDIA-- List of 77 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor
by Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 24Apr2022. And this is AP's 160th book of Science.

Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.

Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

----------------------------
Table of Contents
----------------------------

1) Introduction

2) List of 77 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Math.

3) Appendix

---------
Text
---------

1) Introduction

Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak, the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science because it has this "peak of calculus", unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete to its peak of calculus understanding. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes because the peak of math is going nowhere. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require a new math peak/summit to handle the new physics.

Now I do need to discuss the errors of Math in general and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in partial form in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.

Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.

The listings in Mathopedia of errors, mistakes and fakes is based on the idea that Calculus is the supreme achievement of all of mathematics for it is the essential math of doing Physics electricity and magnetism. And in order to have a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we must clean up and clean out all the mistakes, fakes and errors of Old Math, erstwhile, we have no Calculus. So calculus is the consistency maker for the rest of all of mathematics.

2) List of 77 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Math.

1) Calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a proof that derivative and integral are inverses of one another, just as addition and subtraction are inverses, or, multiplication and division are inverses. The only way to obtain a geometry proof is to clean up and clean out all the fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math, such as their fake numbers-- the Reals. Their fake definition of function allowing anything be a function. Their fakery of a continuum when even physics by 1900 with Planck onwards in Quantum Mechanics proving the Universe is discrete Space not a continuum, yet by 1900 onwards those in mathematics following the idiotic continuum in the Continuum Hypothesis with even more avid interest, when they should have thrown the continuum on a trash-pile of shame.

2) The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, because you have to need and apply one mechanism only to obtain the true numbers of mathematics-- Mathematical Induction. In Old Math they had just a tiny few intelligent mathematicians, Kronecker, who emerged from the gaggle crowd of kooks to notice that Naturals all come from one single mechanism-- Mathematical Induction. But Old Math never had a crowd of mathematicians with logical brains to say-- all our numbers need to come from the one mechanism of Mathematical Induction.

3) The true numbers of math have empty space between successor and predecessor numbers. For example the 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . . , 9.8, 9.9, 10..0. Where no numbers exist between .1 and .2, etc. Only discrete numbers allow us to give a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

4) All functions of mathematics must be a polynomial, and if not a polynomial, convert the offering to a polynomial over a specific interval. Old Math is caught with their pants pulled down and exposed by not having all functions be polynomials for the silly dumb and stupid analysis of a straight line being Y=mx + b is open to interpretation that the slope "m" must not be 0. When Old Math never realized all functions of math must be polynomials, the question of y_2 - y_1 / x_2 - x_1 never rears its ugly head in New Math.

Where is that stupid thread in sci.math, poising as a puzzle problem when it had no functions only pretend functions?

A few days back, 11Aug2021 appeared a stupid puzzle problem here in sci.math. Of someone pretending he had 3, 4 even 5 or 6 functions and wanting to prove equality.

Then I stepped into the conversation saying he had no functions at all, until they are converted into polynomials over a specified interval, then you can do calculus on those true real functions.

So, the world wide math community has got to begin to learn, no function is a function, until, and unless they are polynomials. This is an axiom of math and is proven true by the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. You cannot have a FTC, if you have functions that are not polynomials.

So there is a trade off-- does math want calculus or no calculus? If you want calculus, all your functions have to be polynomials. This has to do with the concept of discrete geometry, not a continuum, for polynomials are discrete.

5) Space is discrete and all lines in space are strings of attached straight lines.

6) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
We can still keep the name "curve" as long as we know it is a string of fine tiny straightline segments strung together in what looks like a smooth curve. If curves exist, then the Calculus in Fundamental Theorem of Calculus cannot be proven and thus Calculus does not exist. We all know that we have to have Calculus, and so we throw out onto the trash-pile the curve of Old Math. And this is reasonable because starting in 1900 in physics there arose the Quantum Mechanics of Space being discrete. And a discrete space has no continuum, has no curve of Old Math.

7) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.

8) Limit analysis was an insane fakery in Old Math, concocted because Old Math needed the excuse of some proof, so they invented the monster con-artist trick that a limit analysis would divert the fact it is no proof at all, but a Non Sequitur argument. Limit analysis is juju totem witchcraft dance around a desire to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Just as idiotic as dancing around a sick person of a virus is going to cure the person. Analyzing something is not the same as proving "that something".

9) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.

10) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.

🦑 of Math and 🐙 of Physics Archimedes "math hater" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> MATHOPEDIA-- List of 77 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
>
1) Ludwig Poehlmann
2) Ludwig Hansen
3) Ludwig van Ludvig
4) Ludwig Plutonium
5) Archimedes Plutonium
6) Archimedes Plutonium
....
77) Archimedes Plutonium

General Nakasone NSA, Kibo Parry M on Xi's China aiming 77 supersonic nuclear missiles at Moscow in event Putin presses nuclear buttons.

Brian Stone NSF, General Nakasone, Kibo Parry M on math failure Thomas Hales. Why Kibo, because he is too dumb in math to do a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus. Or is it because he is still deluded with a slant cut in single cone as ellipse when it is in truth a Oval, see AP proof below.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:59:04 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"I *still* can't find my marbles" "math hater"
> 77)

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:18:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"wasting everyone's time with his mindless, endless spam"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
1) NSA General Paul Nakasone
2) Dr. Panchanathan NSF
3) F. Fleming Crim NSF
4) Brian Stone NSF
5) James S. Olvestad NSF
6) Dorothy E. Aronson NSF

Kibo Parry Moron blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997, where was General Nakasone?
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua

Dr Panchanathan how much do you pay Kibo to stalk nonstop for 30 years?

Kibo says failure Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss. Why Kibo? Because they think the electron of atoms is the 0.5MeV particle when in truth it is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law.

Kibo says physics failures Dr.Panchanathan, Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall, Harry Cliff says Kibo Parry M, the 30 year stalker, who says 938 is 12% short of 945.

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 says math failures Ken Ribet, John Stillwell,Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, SAYS stalker Kibo Parry M. of 30 years nonstop.
>
> Why Kibo, because Tao, Wiles, Hales, Stillwell, Ribet, believes a single cone with 1 axis of symmetry the same as a oval, yet a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry and the above failures of math still brainwashing the world with their ellipse a conic section. Or is it that they preach Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3, with AND as subtraction, being brain dead in logic reasoning to understand the truth table of AND has to be TTTF and not the absurd (throw the baby out in the bathe water) of TFFF. Or is it that they fail to ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> Why do you call them failures of math and logic Kibo Parry M, with your failure at Rensselaer Polytech with your 938 is 12% short of 945.

Kibo why do you have this open hate channel--
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 11:59:50 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 4:53:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Putin's minion"
> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:37:31 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"AnalButtfuckManure"
> > fails at math and science:
> Kibo, I see you still use your famous invented word of 2017 "analbuttfuckmanure" as your frustrations in failing science, and now living on stalking those that succeed in science.
>
>
>
186th published book

Proof the Muon is true real electron of Atoms, and 0.5MeV particle is the magnetic monopole// physics research

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition

Preface: In April of 2022, AP notices a anomaly of battery life of operation and of power output of radioactive element plutonium compared to commonplace batteries such as lithium. And almost instantly, I realized this could be a proof that the muon stuck inside of every proton doing the Faraday law with the proton is the cause of this "extra electricity" and "long life longevity". When each proton inside a atom is an electrical generator producing electricity, means the heaviest elements in Nature are going to be the best batteries. Lithium atom has 3 protons+ 3muons while plutonium atom has 94 protons + 94muons, so that when divided, 94/3 we can expect that the plutonium battery is 31 times more electricity than lithium battery.

Well, in doing this book, I could only find evidence that the plutonium battery is 10 times better than a lithium battery, not 31 times. So maybe that is an anomaly for future research to work out. But for now, I have proven the muon is the real true electron of Atoms and that the 0.5MeV particle, although the unit particle of electricity, the 0.5MeV particle is not the atom's electron but is the Dirac magnetic monopole, produced by the muon thrusting through the proton torus in Faraday law.

Old Physics was really dumb physics, with their elementary particles doing nothing, but relaxing on a beach. Whereas in New Physics, every particle in Nature has a task and function to perform, such as the Faraday law. And that makes commonsense, while Old Physics is kook physics, no logical thinking.

Cover Picture: My iphone photograph picture of a Google search for when Caltech scientists Neddermeyer and Anderson discovered the muon particle of physics in 1936.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09YLLKWBX
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ April 20, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 366 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 36 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

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.