MATHOPEDIA-- List of 80 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor
by Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 5May2022. 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 80 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 80 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 0.1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than 0.1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.

10) In New Math, true math, we must define infinite as something that separates finite number from infinite number. This means a border must exist between what we call a finite number and what is a infinite number. It just so happens we have two kinds or types of infinity, the large infinity, macroinfinity and the small infinity which is the inverse of the large infinity. The inverse is we divide large infinity into 1. There is no logical escape from having a borderline between finite and infinite. And amazing that not until AP happened to traverse on this concept-- you need a border, that this concept was undiscovered-- the demand and need of a borderline. Fortunately the history of mathematics had already done work on geometry figures with infinite reach and yet have finite area. For to uncover where this borderline was, AP needed to only review Huygens tractrix geometry work. Where does the area of the tractrix equal the area of the associated circle for the first time as the tractrix moves down the x-axis ( the pocketwatch experiment)? And it is no surprise to me that when that equality comes true is a special moment in the digit string of pi-number, 3.14159...... For the first time the area of tractrix equals the area of associated circle is where pi digits have their very first three consecutive 0 digits in a row. So the Tractrix proves the infinity borderline is 1*10^604. And naturally, microinfinity would be 1*10^-604.

👎🏼 of Math and 🖕🏼 of Physics Archimedes "🦇💩 crazy" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> MATHOPEDIA-- List of 80 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
7) Archimedes Plutonium
....
80) Archimedes Plutonium

General Nakasone,Dr.Panchanathan NSF,kibo analbuttfuckmanure attacks on Harry Cliff,Roger Penrose,Peter Higgs,Sheldon Glashow,Andrea Ghez On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 7:51:55 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney (kibo Parry M)

General Nakasone,Dr.Panchanathan NSF,kibo analbuttfuckmanure attacks on Rensselaer Polytech Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 7:51:55 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney (kibo Parry M) wrote:
> More punishment!!
> "Did you *steal* my marbles?
On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:37:31 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"AnalButtfuckManure"
> fails at math and science:

Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, Dan Christensen bend over..er.. can't find their marbles Rensselaer Polytech Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw,
On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 10:50:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs,Roger Penrose can't find their marbles Rensselaer Polytech Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt so says Kibo Parry M.

Why James Kibo Parry M? Is it because one of 4 reasons or all four combined that they lost their marbles?
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.

Kibo, did they not lose their marbles way back in 1993 when AP started posting to sci.math and sci.physics, at about the time NSF and NSA hired you Kibo to stalk nonstop, and how much do they pay you to hate-stalk, kibo? Is it $100 per post so you can afford geothermal house and all electric cars??

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "Putin's Stooge"
> fails at math and science:
>can't find my marbles

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