Panchanathan,Cordova,Suresh,Bement NSF looking for lost marbles Tao,Wiles,Hales,Stillwell, Strang,Baez,Ribet, Pipher, Charney. Why Kibo Parry M 30 year hate stalker? Do you actually think they will admit slant cut of cone is a Oval never ellipse?

Panchanathan,Cordova,Suresh,NSF,Nakasone NSA looking for lost marbles of Rensselaer Polytech Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, with their 30 year nonstop hate stalk of Kibo

Kibo Parry--NSA,NSF hate stalkers looking for Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, lost marbles On Thursday, April 28, 2022 Kibo Parry M,General Nakasone,NSF France Anne Cordova,Subra Suresh,Arden Lee Bement Jr.,Rita R. Colwell,Neal Francis Lane,John Howard Gibbons wrote: "I*still* can't find my marbles".
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

Kibo, 30 year nonstop stalker, even if you do find Rensselaer Polytech marbles, do you honestly think they will admit the truth-- Oval is slant cut in single cone, not the ellipse, or give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or ask the simple question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle.
Dr. Panchanathan NSF, General Nakasone, Kibo Parry M on math failures Philip J. Hanlon, 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.

Kibo, why is Dr. Hanlon so dumb in math that he cannot even add 1 and 1, for a single cone has 1 axis of symmetry, oval 1 axis of symmetry yet ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, yet the fools Hanlon, Hales, Wiles, Tao still teach ellipse is a conic section when it the Oval at slant cut.

The 30 year payed for attack stalker Kibo Parry M.
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)

Kibo Parry M on Donald Schwendeman and Harry Cliff-- why kibo? Because he cannot ask the simple question which is the atoms real electron -- muon or 0..5MeV particle?
>
> More to the point Rensselaer losing its accreditation for graduating a moron like Kibo Parry M. who still thinks 938 is 12% short of 945. Talk about failure, here Rensselaer graduates a so called engineer who cannot even do proper percentage problems.
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 2:15:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "math hater"
> > fails at math and science:
> >Village Idiot"
> > fails at math and science:
>
> 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.
>

Re: 1-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
by Roy Masters Sep 13, 2019, 3:24:07 PM

Re: 1.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
by Patricio J. Whackmember Sep 13, 2019, 5:43:28 PM

Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin
By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:57:15 AM

Re: 2.0-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Michael,Newberg,N'Gom
By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:57 AM

Re: 2.1-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Persans,Schroeder,Shur
By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:39 AM

Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang
By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:28 AM

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang

Rensselaer math department
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann

Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM

Re: _Donald Schwendeman, Rensselaer,Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, is the reason you failed to confirm .5MeV was not the atom's electron but Dirac's monopole because you failed science like kibo
by Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Apr 25, 2019, 12:08:26 PM

Re: a second forgery post by Jan Burse-- time to pull the plug on him
by Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Feb 24, 2017, 6:00:53 AM

Re: 4-Andrew Wiles and his fake FLT proof, so dumb on FLT he could not even spot Euler's flaw of exp 3 FLT, and so dumb as a mathematician, he never could do a geometry proof of calculus, FTC.
by Blake Studdard Jul 12, 2021, 10:51 AM

Re: A newsgroup like sci.math is a pile of shit when you have paid stalkers like Kibo Parry M. or Dan Christensen lording over sci.math as if he owns the place-- stalking and attacking posters 7-24-365. This is why I now post a roadmap to AP's newsgr
by Alan Mackenzie Jun 29, 2021, 2:36:04 PM

Re: 1.2Analbuttfuckmanure Justin Trudeau,Sophie Gregoire, says Dan Christensen or Kibo//Stephen Lecce, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
by Hoofington P. McSnort Aug 26, 2020, 7:01:28 PM

Re: 30) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 70 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. Last revision was 28JUN2021. Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held
by Michael Moroney Jul 3, 2021, 12:55:10 PM

Re: More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics.
by Dan Christensen Jun 28, 2021, 2:33 PM

Re: 2- Dan Christensen on failed math MIT Gilbert Strang, with his scatterbrained Calculus books, no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Gilbert never knew
by Chris M. Thomasson 6:09 PM On 6/25/2021

Jan Burse is Joel Mesot a failure of math because he cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus or because he cannot even comprehend the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse? Stands to reason if Joel is too dumb in conic sections he would fail doing a proof of calculus.
>
> Jan Burse laughs at Joel Mesot, too dumb to ask even the simple question of physics-- which is the Atom's true electron, the 0.5MeV particle or the muon, which AP says the muon is stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law producing more Dirac magnetic monopoles of 0.5MeV.
> >
> Jan Burse Swiss failure with his ellipse a conic section when it is a Oval at the slant cut, but Jan farted his way through ETH.
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:52:23 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > Ha Ha, dream on with your Nazi mathematics and cleansing.
> >brain farto, Putler of sci.math and sci.physics.
> > Not a single line of math in 30 years.

#1-1, 148th published book

Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 30Nov2021. And this is AP's 148th published science book.

Preface:
Physics book that explains what the universe is, and how it works. This is a continuation of the Atomic Theory by Democritus in Ancient Greek times. It adds one more fact to the Atomic Theory picture. That the Universe itself is one gigantic big atom. The picture is that of the Universe, in total, is one big atom that contains more atoms, inside itself. It completes the logic of science that Dr. Feynman wrote-- all things are made up of atoms -- and so, to complete that idea -- all things and the universe itself is an atom.

In this edition of year 2021, AP actually proves the Atom Totality theory, and therefore, a simultaneously _disproof_ of the Big Bang theory. The proof is simple, in that the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but rather, instead, shine from the Faraday law going on inside each and every proton in the Sun or star, or, in the Universe. The muon is the true electron of atoms and is the bar magnet in Faraday's law while the proton is a 840MeV particle in the geometry shape of 8 ring coil torus that is the closed loop coil in Faraday's Law. NASA scientists have discovered the Sun is a yearly increase in radiation of 0.005% yearly, and is why 25% of all insects have perished in the last decade 2010-2020. Stars and Sun shine from Faraday law, not from fusion and that is how the Universe itself grows. So, we cannot logically have two different mechanisms for the creation of the Universe. We cannot have electricity magnetism of Faraday law and then some silly "explosion of Big Bang" to create and grow the universe.

Also, in the course of providing supporting evidence of the Atom Totality theory, my research had to revise and correct the entire Maxwell Equations, and revise and correct the theory, the quantum electrodynamics theory.

Cover Picture: Again I used 8 rings from plumbing hardware to represent the 8 rings of a proton torus, and visualize each ring as a dot cloud pattern instead of a continuous ring, and the holes in some of those rings helps facilitate that image. Notice the muon ring is inside the proton torus rings, and perpendicular, and situated at the equator, going around and around the proton torus at nearly the speed of light in the Faraday law; producing electricity. Atoms are designed to produce maximum electricity, given their masses.
Length: 329 pages

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08T82M2LP
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ January 16, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 872 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 329 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #203,710 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #289 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #1,716 in Physics (Books)
•

#1-2, 48th published book

Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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

1) A visual image of a Atom Totality

2) Simply multiply 9 times 105MeV and there you get the rest mass of proton and neutron.

3) The tau-electron 1777MeV is merely 105MeV multiply by 17 is 1785 with Sigma Error of 0.4%.

4) Particle in the 840MeV range so that we can say we discovered the proton particle isolated of its internal muon.

5) Found a 840MeV particle in experimental physics, but, is it the proton torus without its interior occupied by a muon?

6) The theory of 9s, as help in physics.

7) How we picture the interior of Atoms, and the Atom Totality.

8) The Principle of Scooting-Over, applied.

9) An ongoing commentary of the geometry of atoms, both interior and exterior.

10) Galaxies form Rings in Faraday Coil, and Faraday bar-magnet // Cosmic Proton, Cosmic Muon.

11) Is there a Cosmic Faraday Law going on?
Length: 148 pages

Product details
File Size: 2370 KB
Print Length: 148 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: June 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07SW87BF5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #285,417 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#826 in Astronomy (Books)
#166 in Astronomy (Kindle Store)
#671 in Physics (Kindle Store)

Terence Tao,Robert Finkelstein, Christian Fronsdal, Walter Gekelman,
>
> You mean the 4 failures, Kibo Parry M, 30 year nonstop stalker of Usenet
>
> Why do they lack the honesty and decency to admit slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse? Why on tv tonight was Attenborough talking of the magnificence of the oval known as the egg on NATURE. Yet here is all of Harvard Univ, academically dishonest and corrupt in admitting the truth..
>
> On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 10:24:48 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Autistic
> > The usual "12 Failures
> > + personal attack + stalking of
> > Harvard professors.
> >
> John Roberts loves Zika microcephaly. Kibo Parry M does he love covid-19 microcephaly even more?
> On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 5:13:19 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Why is it that Stupidis unable to learn *anything*, especially
> > not to attack me? Maybe he'll learn after some more punishment!
> >
> Bozo Amy Coney Barrett loves Zika Microcephaly-- Kibo Parry M 30 year stalker on--
> On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 5:09:44 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "bozo"
> Sam Alito Loves Zika Microcephaly
>
>
> Why James Kibo Parry M? Is it because one of 4 reasons or all four combined that they lost their marbles? Or is it simply they lack the academic integrity and honesty to admit slant cut in single cone is oval, never ellipse..
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>

UCLA chancellor: Gene D. Block (biology)

UCLA Physics dept
Ernest Abers, Elihu Abrahams, Katsushi Arisaka, Michalis Bachtis
Eric Becklin, Zvi Bern, Rubin Braunstein, Stuart Brown, Robijn Bruinsma
Charles Buchanan, Wesley Campbell, Troy Carter, Sudip Chakravarty
W. Gilbert Clark, John Cornwall, Robert Cousins, Eric D'Hoker
Robert Finkelstein, Christian Fronsdal, Walter Gekelman, Graciela Gelmini
George Gruner, Michael Gutperle, Brad Hansen, Jay Hauser, Karoly Holczer
Huan Huang, Eric Hudson, George Igo, Per Kraus, Alexander Kusenko
Thomas Mason, George Morales, Warren Mori, Steven Moszkowski
Christoph Niemann, Kumar Patel, Roberto Peccei, Claudio Pellegrini
Seth Putterman, B. Regan, James Rosenzweig, Joseph Rudnick
David Saltzberg, William Slater, Reiner Stenzel, Terry Tomboulis, Jean Turner

Christopher Skinner, Allan Sly, Elias Stein, Zoltán Szabó, Terence Tao
Princeton Univ, why not admit the truth Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never the ellipse. Princeton -- __truth always wins__ and your actions of hiring or __complacent with__ hate-stalker criminals of Kibo Parry M. or Jan Burse or Dan Christensen or their dozen allies of hatred, only shows that Princeton Univ is no longer in the business of science and truth but has gone corrupt.

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 1:06:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Spamming front page blithered:
> > Shithead Dartmouth College:Philip J. Hanlon, Miles

Not much difference between the corrupt Donald Trump and his mindless "big lie" and Princeton Univ with their mindless big lie of ellipse a conic section.

No point in asking any Harvard professor which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle when the bozo the clowns cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval.

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)

Princeton Univ-- why not tell the truth of science instead of being complacent or hiring a moron paid for hate-stalker like Kibo Parry M. You must know, truth always wins.
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 4:59:49 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>why do you have to be such a crybaby about the ellipse being a conic
> section?

Princeton University Math dept

Michael Aizenman, Manjul Bhargava, William Browder, Tristan Buckmaster, Sun-Yung Alice Chang, Maria Chudnovsky, Peter Constantin, John Conway, Mihalis Dafermos, Gabriele Di Cerbo, Zeev Dvir, Weinan E, Charles Fefferman, David Gabai, Javier Gómez-Serrano, Robert C. Gunning, Jonathan Hanselman, Wu-Chung Hsiang, Alexandru Ionescu, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb, Adam Marcus,
Fernando Codá Marques, Ana Menezes, Sophie Morel, Assaf Naor, Peter Ozsváth, John Pardon, Fabio Pusateri, Igor Rodnianski, Peter Sarnak, Paul D. Seymour, Tatyana Shcherbyna, Nicholas Sheridan, Goro Shimura, Yakov Sinai, Amit Singer, Christopher Skinner, Allan Sly, Elias Stein, Zoltán Szabó, Gang Tian, Hale Trotter, Vlad Vicol, Paul C. Yang, Shou-Wu Zhang